Ten Hasselblad cameras up for grabs in 2016 Masters competition

They are indeed giving away camwras as prizes, they have yet to announce what ones though. This is in addition to having a high end kit to use to produce the body of work. No sense in saying the sky is falling until it hits you in the head, especially with the announcement of even the finalists so far out.

It's not sad at all. it's simply logic.

This is manufactured and market as a professional tool.
It is then only natural that they want to raise awareness through a competition aimed at professionals, not at all type of photographers (...one of whom may, obviously, be better in one of those specific categories than a given professional).

That sense of entitlement is a bit off-putting, if you ask me...

I'm so sick of people pulling out Vivian Maier as an example. Yes her work was good. BUT she never intended you to see it. And you never would have, but some dude found her negatives and decided to make money from them long after she was dead.

"she never intended you to see it"...curious assertion.
Is there a statement from her to that effect?

Yeah. The fact that she packed all of her negs away and never printed them is a pretty good clue.

Unless you expected a posthumous statement.

That does not mean a thing.

Do you think it would have been easy for a nanny is the 50's to publish her work?

The fact that it was not published does not mean she did not try to, especially because, being quite a seclusive person, many details of her life's details remain unknown.

For all we know, she may have gone to Life Magazine half a dozen times just to have her work turned down.

That derision of "dude that found her negatives" is, in my view, ill-placed because, for once and in her case we are not faced with a promotional stunt squeezing nothing out of a "wanna be" artist.

Her work consistently and repeatedly shows us she was the deal.

Myself, I will be forever grateful to the "dude" that brought her to the public eyes and can only but wish that some self-appointed "street photographers" (...many, oh so many, in the Leica forum...) could take a good look at her photos and understand what makes "photographing in the street" magically turn into actual "street photography".

Yes - she were very good. But - it is quite obvious that she only wanted to take the photos. She was satisfied with catching the images on negatives. Such people exist today also - they take lots of digital images - and never print them and never do anything else with them except storing them.

@PhotoKhan: You're delusional. And that "dude that found her negatives" saw a story and made a film out of it. He was just LUCKY he found good images.

She could have printed the images and hung them on her wall. But she didn't. She took photos and stashed them away.

Your idea that she was some sort of tragically under appreciated photographer is pure fantasy. She was happy being a nanny and she liked to take photos. She had no ambition to be HCB.

The fact that you think that the "dude that found her negatives" was lucky and don't understand that, far from luck, he had the understanding required to recognize what he stumbled upon makes me happy that you - in your non-delusional but amusing certitude- were not the one to find them.

As per under appreciated photographer fantasies, you are the one to talk about them because, myself, I never evoked nothing of the kind.

You declared "she never intended you to see it", I questioned it, and you decided to be obnoxiously patronizing in your reply.

(continues)

(continued)

The fact remains, though: Unless you have psychic powers, you can't tell for sure if she wanted or did not want us to see her work, had or had not printed proofs that were eventually destroyed, was happy or not being a nanny or what ambitions she had or had not.

All we have are glorious Street Photography pictures, courtesy of the "dude" you referred to.

They are what they are, irrespectively, even, of what Vivian Maier thought of her own work.

...And, most certainly, they are what they are irrespectively of how sore you might be about the "dude" that discovered them.

And you have psychic powers that says that she "DID" have aspirations? Nope.

Here's a quote from "the dude who a made the film about her:
""She was a Socialist, a Feminist, a movie critic, and a tell-it-like-it-is type of person. She learned English by going to theaters, which she loved. ... She was constantly taking pictures, which she didn't show anyone."

Re-read that last sentence Einstein. The guy you are defending said it, so it MUST be true, right?

(...These exchanges can be logically-exhausting...)

Go to your first intervention. Re-read it.

You made an absolute-affirmative assertion "she never intended you to see it".

I questioned it because I never saw a quote from her to that effect (...and there are many, many tapes with her "interviews" where she makes personal considerations and assertions...).

You then elected to be obnoxiously patronizing in your reply to a question that was simply investigative, from my point of view.

Following your chosen veering-off line, I replied that, failing direct testimony, you (as anybody else) cannot know what her position or intentions were.

That quote from Mr. John Maloof pertains to her acts at a certain time, certainly not her intentions which, again, could only be firmly established from a personal quote.

(continues)

(cont.)

If you see the absolute brilliant , story-serving documentary "Finding Vivien Maier", you'll be able to verify that even Mr. Maloof, himself, is not certain of her intentions.

There are, however, clues.

If you take the time to see the documentary and preserve your mind from being blown by both the selected displayed works and the multi-level, almost "palimpsestic" readings the story provides in such multiple levels as how photography relates to contemporary art, human relations, empathy stratification and other human and psychological perspectives, you'll be able to locate parts of the documentary that will clue you in to this particular subject.

To that extent, take notice on how two of her closest friends (...in as much as she had "friends"...) give exact opposite replies to the question of whether she would have wanted to have her work shown.

The 2 replies are masterly edited in sequence, for the benefit of not so self-assured persons as you seem to be.

(cont.)

(cont.)

Further to this, take notice of the part about the letter she wrote back to a photo shop owner she met while visiting France. In it, she clearly states her intention to have prints made. She clearly states that the work she was getting in the States (from wherever it was) was not satisfactory. In the very same letter there's also a clue on how she had a pretty good idea of how valid her work was.

Thomas,

You could have elected to reply to that simple question of mine with an also simple "No, I don't" or with "Yes, check this link to a quote from her".

Instead, you chose a 3rd course of interaction that only shows how little you know about her work and what it means and how you seem to resent Mr. John Maloof, commendable (...and lucrative, yes...) endeavor.

I would suggest you familiarize yourself a bit more deeply with the subjects you feel a need to express negatively about, if for nothing else, to allow other's to fully encompass your perspective.

Be well.

That was a lot of stuff. So I didn't read it. There's a reason why they have limits on how long posts can be. Most people don't want to read long diatribes from fanboys.

So I hope you had fun typing up a rebuttal that will never be read.

It's OK...after all it IS bliss.

No. It's the fact that I don't care enough to read the self-indulgent ramblings of some kook.

Why don't you read the actual rules? It says they loan you some gear for the project AND you get a free camera. Where's the scam?

Professional is to keep put the millions of horrible photographers on flickr from floodind the judges with crappy bokeh and HDR photos.

Stop crying about something you obviously didn't look into.

I borrowed a Lunar from the camera shop for a couple of days and I liked it OK. It was more ergonomically correct than the Sony it was modeled after.

If I was a point and shooter and I had the spare money I'd buy one.

One could achieve a lot of things with the S5, you are right.
However, it is painfully obvious that the D3S outpowers all current camera phones.

That's beside the point. Whether he does know how this works or not doesn't change the fact that by entering, you'd have a tiny chance of winning, while by whining you have no chance of earning anything.

In case of public vote, its more closer to bending over and doing whatever plebs finds "likeable". If not gathering amounts of followers (aka wh*ring) to get enough votes..

If its truly "masters" then probably masters should decide..

@JDthomas

I think you didn't read:

1) you don't get to OWN camera, it is rented to you for couple months!

2) your photos gets to hasselblad book, that doesn't give you the money but just fame (important if under 21)

3) hasselblad keeps permissions to use all the photos in the book as they please (it isn't just for the book, for their marketing etc)

For many it is good stepping board to get high paying customers, especially on those few months when you have the Hasselblad.

maybe, but certainly not the 50000$ toy.

Didn't go to page 3 in their listing.

As Hasselblad page say:

2015-02-16 The new Masters Awards 2016 programme is the most compelling ever for the world’s most accomplished photographers. For this edition we have new categories and each of the ten winners will not only gain a Hasselblad Master accolade and global exposure but also a new high-end Hasselblad medium format camera.

AND

Part of the prize will be a place in the Hasselblad Masters book and touring exhibition, and the ten winners will be loaned Hasselblad equipment for four months to produce a themed set of 10-20 images each on a subject of their own choice.

Entered images do not have to have been shot on Hasselblad equipment, although those for the book do. The closing date for the competition is 31st May 2015, and the winners will be announced on 16th February 2016. Hasselblad has not stated which of its cameras it will be giving away to the winners.

Don't you think it is easy to read they get loaned, not own cameras?

Thank you.

@JDThomas

It isn't FREE, it is free LOANED camera.
You can use the Hasselblad for 4 months and then you need to return it.

A $2000 for professional isn't big money. Especially if you win as you get clients.