I was entered in a contest last year where the "judged" winner was so bad, that sponsors of the contest awarded a second "first" prize to another photo. The judge for this contest was a art teacher from a local college. One would think that person was qualified. This incident had many scratching their heads. What was this judge thinking. You really had to see this "prize winner" to see what I am referring to. I am no expert by far, but I know a good photo from a bad one. I can make allowances for many styles and skill levels, but this was beyond the pale.

Hey everyone. I have been enjoying your posts and gaining knowledge from those who've "been there". I have a question. I enter in a Vermont photo contest every year at our state's largest attended annual 10 day fair. This year was my 4th. The first year I got an honorable mention, I was so proud. Nothing since, which is fine. I do it for the love of my hobby and the experience of being involved. We're allowed three entries each among the several categories.

My question: Many photos that win are photos I personally think should not even be considered. They're often blurry, out of focus, immature looking shots (to me). I'm very curious to know, what is in the mind of judges? Do any of you judge at for your local contests? This year as we were picking up our entries post-fair we received a paper entitled, "12 Merits of an Image" which I'm sure they're saying are what judges look for in a contest image. There is nothing on the paper which says, "Should be sharp and clear but out of focus is okay too". The paper is all about sharp, infocus, great color, telling a story sort of thing. One judge even suggested that I should have used a different color matting. Isn't this supposed to be about the photo and not about the matting? I am confused.

Thank you so much for reading this and any thoughts you send my way.