Hi Everyone,

Clearly the Atlas photo thread has become a very contentious debate. I would like to say a few words on how I think it could be fixed. As Ed and others have pointed out, the difference between this effort and a standard "photo contest" is that it's not quite fair to say, "If you don't like the rules, don't participate." As volunteers who have put in hundreds of hours of field work, as members of MOS, and as naturalists who are passionate about bird conservation in Maryland, there are a lot of stakeholders in this effort. What really matters is the quality of the publication.

My concerns with the effort can be filed into two areas: 1) a surprisingly disdainful, dismissive attitude toward serious photographers' potential contributions, and 2) an overly cumbersome process. I'll say my peace on both:

1) Suboptimal attitude: From the start of this thread, official messages on the rules have been marked with disdain for serious photographers. The language has implied that we are unfair and want to dominate the book. It has been said directly that if we don't like the rules, we shouldn't compete. I won't dwell on example, but it actually HAS left many of us feeling frustrated and alienated. Although this effort is being called a contest, it is really a call for contributions--for donations of intellectual property. Language should reflect that this is a call for participation in a worthy cause. It should read as an invitation to be a part of something great that our state's birding community can all be proud of. That has not been the case. I am fighting an inclination to walk away from this effort because I know my images will help a good cause. We all care about the success of this effort, and the more active among us shouldn't be unduly burdened
 because we have more to contribute. More importantly, we shouldn't be immediately characterized as glory-hunters bent on dominating the book's images. It's counterproductive and unwarranted.

2) Overly cumbersome process:  The goals of the committee should be efficiency, fairness to participants, and maximum quality. I disagree with the premise that the images will require a massive amount of storage space, and I don't think that such elaborate measures need to be taken to mask identities and capture every bit of data for each image during submission. I think all images should be accepted in JPEG format regardless of size, signature presence, or location, sorted into folders by species, and then viewed by the team of judges. Multiple images of a species by any photographer should be encouraged--just caveat the request with "Please don't send 200 bluebird photos. Be reasonable." The only thing necessary would be the photographer's name or code in the filename, and this only so that the owner could be contacted later. I really don't think that knowing who took an image would sway anyone, and I find that when reviewing even large numbers of
 photos, there's nearly always a clear best. Once a "winner" is selected, you e-mail the photographer saying "please send us the high-res image." I really have a hard time seeing why such an elaborate process - as currently described - needs to exist. If the best product is the goal - and it really should be - everyone will pick the best image. If there's a close call, then please feel free to lean toward the photographer with less representation in the book. Many of my favorite images of species in Maryland were taken by individuals that are not die-hard photographers.

Here's a basic process that would work well. Request that everyone send images to a point of contact. People with just a few photos can e-mail them. Large collections should be sent on CDs. The POC creates a photo-sharing site (e.g., Flickr, Picasa, Smugmug, PBase) and creates the 200 or so galleries, one for each species. You don't need to enter any extra data like location or photographer name, but if there happens to be a "George Jett" signature block, it doesn't really matter. Once all the images are uploaded, then the voters submit their votes for the best photo of each species. The votes are tallied by another party and you have your "winners." Voters can then contest any winner if it's sitting on a Saguaro or next to a Green Jay. If so, then you go with the runner-up. The only risk here is that you'll have a lot of photos of the common species. The competition for Northern Cardinal might be fierce, but that means that we'll have GREAT photos of
 the common species. We should. These photo sharing web sites are easy to use and offer plenty of space. The work of uploading photos, which isn't as massive as some people make it sound, can be shared by more than one volunteer using the same photo-sharing account. 

I think the process can easily be simplified and improved. My apologies to everyone who would rather just talk about birds. I'm with you!

Best,

Bill

 
Bill Hubick
Pasadena, Maryland

http://www.billhubick.com