Photo Prog on Channel 4

If you've downloaded 4OD im sure it will be on there to watch whenever.
 
Stupid Sky played up only caught bits and bobs of the show on the +1 channel. I found it quite interesting, but only having a couple of months experience I suppose I would. Must say I have seen much better pictures on here than were displayed by the contestants though.
 
I got the feeling they weren't after real talent - but people with "interest"
Thats the problem with a lot of these "talent" programs, it doesn't matter how good you are, its how good you are at getting "noticed". In this case your photo's may have been superb but unless it jumped off the page or your "back story" caught the selectors eye, then you dont stand a chance!
 
mattyh said:
ssshhh thats going to be me on Wednesday... I'm going to shoot a 5 year old........
Click to expand...

Is that with me Mattyh?

I hope your resulting images with have the qualities of resonating emotion as those on the C4 prog were apparently lacking in

:thumbs:
 
I shoot with the best gear, and as you're a Nikon user - so I'll expect you to shoot accurately and well too

I shall instruct oh grasshopper one, I shall teach, but I cannot make you learn

Your simple aim - post a thread of Mattyh's first studio attempt as Dellipher has, but better her images

If you have a laptop - bring it and a cd to burn them to - then we can compare post processing too

:thumbs:
 
I thought the standard of photography on the program was VERY poor, how any of those are going to have work good enough for a gallery show and book in 2 weeks is beyond me.

When they were saying a portrait should reflect the sitter and the photographer I was flabbergasted it about the sitter and only the sitter IMHO.

Now lets be honest the worst photo taken at the TP meet in Blackpool was better than the best of the Brighton shots shown.

I do think that with this show, and many other art shows, it's about having formal training i.e. a photography degree or going art collage and not about talent.

These judges are not going to allow some new upstart to breaking their word unless the have been formal trained.
 
I watched the programme and took one or two things from it as I try to from anything I see, do or read.

There are quite a few harsh comments in this thread in terms of the six photographers that were chosen to appear and their technical abilities. My understanding (which may be incorrect) is that people submitted photographs and were eventually chosen on the basis that their work showed potential in the opinion of the judges.

I don't know about other people but I have had one or two pics that people have felt were very good. But if you put me on television and took me out of my comfort zone and asked me to produce a brilliant pic I would struggle. Particularly if Germaine Greer was glaring at me!!!!! It's generally like posting a pic on here. We usually send good or reasonably good pics for fear of looking daft! What we generally omit is the 100 shots at various appertures, speeds, etc that it took to get that good pic that end up in the PC / Mac bin, never to be shown. These people have some bottle to get involved in the programme. Lets give them some credit for doing that at least.

I also felt that some of the pics were very good. But I am no expert I just love photography. I don't know about others but in my opinion most of the people in the programme were technically better than me. As for the guy that struggled with the settings for Germaine Greer, can we honestly say that if someone shoved a different format camera (or make, Canon / Nikon / Olympus / Pentax) in front of us and asked us to photograph a personality like GG we would be saying yep, no probs!! Come on people:shrug:

Chris :)
 
I missed it! Anyone know if it can be watched online?
 
I don't think I'd have issues with the wrong shutter speed though. Plus I've never heard of her so it'd just be another person :) I did like a few of the shots there, but considering I know better photographers that entered its a bit of an annoying show.
 
I thought it was an interesting programme. I thought some of the photos produced for the crit at the end were pretty good. I got the impression that the candidates were chosen for the show, not because they were good to start with, but that they were people who showed a potential for improvement, but who already had a certain developed style and / or an "eye" for something interesting.

I didn't agree that Jay should have been pushed this time (although the judges did admit that their reasons were partly down to time constraints) because I thought his shots looked good. I was surprised that Aron (?) got to stay. He couldn't stick to the brief and I thought his use of the photoshopped placard with the family / dancing kids was out of order. They agreed to do something in respect of which they had no idea what the end result would be.

Photography is subjective. Its interesting stuff.
 
What I found amazing was that very few actually followed the brief they were given, especially on the initial portrait assignment. They seem to go off and do their own thing. Instant suicide for commissioned work

Not impressed . Loads of room for improvement. Could do a lot better.:shake::shake::shake:
 
donutagain said:
when you ve got the sitter for a portrait telling the tog to use a faster shutter and to get more light ,,,,,,,,,
Click to expand...

what a complete joke that was! i couldnt believe it. You'd think that even if they hadnt been in a studio before they would have done some research and got some practice. It was like watching noddy with a camera!:thumbsdown:

martin parr waffled a lot about very little IMO.
 
petemc said:
I don't think I'd have issues with the wrong shutter speed though. Plus I've never heard of her so it'd just be another person :) I did like a few of the shots there, but considering I know better photographers that entered its a bit of an annoying show.
Click to expand...

Hi Pete, I don't think that you would have issues with the shutter speed either. :)

Germaine Greer is one of the most important feminist authors / campaigners of our time. I had the pleasure of meeting her when I was at Uni and she was brilliant. She does not suffer fools gladly, speaks her mind and I can say in all honesty that she scared the s*%t out of me. The only saving grace was that I knew her work. She was quite impressed that a (youngish at the time) fella had taken an interest in feminist issues and was quite vocal at the time. I'm a lot quieter now!!!

Chris :)
 
whiteflyer said:
I thought the standard of photography on the program was VERY poor, how any of those are going to have work good enough for a gallery show and book in 2 weeks is beyond me.

When they were saying a portrait should reflect the sitter and the photographer I was flabbergasted it about the sitter and only the sitter IMHO.

Now lets be honest the worst photo taken at the TP meet in Blackpool was better than the best of the Brighton shots shown.

I do think that with this show, and many other art shows, it's about having formal training i.e. a photography degree or going art collage and not about talent.

These judges are not going to allow some new upstart to breaking their word unless the have been formal trained.
Click to expand...

HOW can you say that about people with formal training, i am studying for my degree in photography, i was a Amatuer photographer (genre) for a few years before i started my studies, martin parr one of the judges on the show who i have had the pleasure of speaking to, is an absolute genius, and he went down that route, i know that ignorence is bliss, but if you think that pretty images without soul are the way forward then fine, but believe me since i have started doing my BA my interest and love for photography has multiplied by 1000 fold. i spoke to a chap o this forum about martin parr this week, and i made a prediction, that he didnt agree with, I TOLD YOU SO.
 
whiteflyer said:
When they were saying a portrait should reflect the sitter and the photographer I was flabbergasted it about the sitter and only the sitter IMHO.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with everything else that's been said about the program and I switched between depair and laughter throughout.

But on the point quoted above I disagree. A portrait does reflect the photographer because it will naturally include how they see the subject. Where the people on the show failed was in their ability to consider the subject as a person rather than just another prop (well one guy did head in that direction by engaging in conversation but that was a more psuedo candid approach).

I watched the program with my wife Wendy and she asked who was the one person I'd most like to shoot. I couldn't pick one and Wendy asked what about the Queen? I said I'd love to but then I'd want to shoot her cutting her toenails or putting the kettle on in her dressing gown. Right there is the reflection of how I see the Queen - just the same as the rest of us and the photo would reflect that by showing her doing an everyday thing.

Wendy then asked what about Germaine Greer? My immediate response was to have a shot of her picking at a thread on her clothes. That might be a bit subtle but that is the "box" I mentally keep her in, someone who picks at a thread to see what happens. The less subtle option would be a shot of her pressing a big red button with a sign above it say "DO NOT PRESS". Finally, the OTT version would be swinging at the button with a sledgehammer.

For me all of those are what I consider a classic portrait. It shows the subject's character or personality through the eyes of the photographer.

Ok, off me soapbox now ;)
 
pxl8 said:
For me all of those are what I consider a classic portrait. It shows the subject's character or personality through the eyes of the photographer.
Click to expand...

I agree with that too. How can it not be that? Photography is always about how you see things.
 
pxl8 said:
For me all of those are what I consider a classic portrait. It shows the subject's character or personality through the eyes of the photographer.

Ok, off me soapbox now ;)
Click to expand...

I think the problem with a lot of the portraits was that the togs imposed their own views as to what the "sitter" should be doing. Classic portrait photography requires the photographer to bring out something of the personality of the subject. Given 1hr 20 mins to do the shoot, I would have been tempted to spend at least half an hour just talking.
 
I found it very interesting indeed to see the processes which went into the creation of each image, and very interesting also to read all your reactions to it, many of which I agree with. I still learnt from the programme though, they achieved images far better than any I could have done.
I thought the dancing children/crack photo was way out of order, surely there must be potential legal issues here. Channel 4 did not even show any sort of disclaimer to reassure us that the family knew what would be shown. I was also sorry that the non-formally-trained Jay went out, altho I guess I can see the judges' point about lack of time for him to develop to show/book standard. Aron (the crack guy?) I thought should have gone, along with the girl who did go.

Cathy
 
Missed the show, but it sounds like I missed nothing apart from a mockery. Might watch it next week to see if they are as bad as you all say.
 
There appears to be a lot of jealousy on this thread. Personally, I thought it was a great show to watch but other people appoint themselves as better straight away.

Big deal, some of them did not understand exposure, or setting up a medium/full frame studio camera, but lets be honest, there are people here who shoot twice as much and still dont or would be in the same boat. Some of the pictures they took were great. Simple as that. If they all carry on with the same joy that they have, then yes, I think they will all take great pictures.

The one thing that stood out for me in the whole show, was when the woman took the portrait of the guy with the bigbald head in the little window, somewhat low key. She should have used that, as he is a cinema projectionist. Ideal situational portrait I think - still, she will spot that in the future.
 
pxl8 said:
A portrait does reflect the photographer because it will naturally include how they see the subject. Where the people on the show failed was in their ability to consider the subject as a person rather than just another prop (well one guy did head in that direction by engaging in conversation but that was a more psuedo candid approach).

For me all of those are what I consider a classic portrait. It shows the subject's character or personality through the eyes of the photographer.

Ok, off me soapbox now ;)
Click to expand...

Your right , I think I did not really put down what meant. They looked to be MORE interested in their ideal shot and not in the actual person they were shooting.
 
whiteflyer said:
lucinda.chua

She has already exhibited and of the websites I could find hers is the most professional looking.
Click to expand...

I found her images a bit forced compared to some of the others though & her self portrait image really didn't appeal to me at all imho.
I'll be agreeing with Pete (Diego) about the show overall though because I found it very informative how the different people dealt with the briefs & whilst they tended to go off on weird tangents it was still good to see how their work was received, I also like some quite commercial style work & a few of the images did appeal to me.
I was a bit shocked with the overall portrait quality though & found myself hoping that someone would go with what Martin Parr suggested & do some "straight up" portraits rather than trying to overdo everything (didn't like Aarons work for this reason)
Think that they made pretty much the correct choices with regards to who left but I'd have liked to have seen Aaron leave rather than the guy with less experience.
 
Thats quite an impressive flickr stream, which says alot to me. I didn't see much of the program, but I like this guys shots.
 
I think it was really silly to kick him out just because he lacked experience. He's got some really good photos in his Flickr stream. That guy who photoshopped the sign into the family should have instantly been kicked out simply for that level of photoshopping, never mind using the family that way.
 
I spoke to Jay this morning and whilst he is upset he was kicked out (some 6 months ago now when the program was finished) he is a great guy and is interested in one thing and one thing only - photography.

I find some comments on this thread quite harsh and agree they seem to be bourne out of jealousy. Its great that Channel 4 have aired a program on digital photography and even better that it is at a prime time showing the public that 'togs are not pointless p***'s with big lenses (as other threads you can search seem to go on about!).

Rather than slate 'togs learning, or indeed slate the program, try to take a "photographic" side and look at the different angles of the program.

I personally find it great and hope there is more to come after this series!
 
petemc said:
I think it was really silly to kick him out just because he lacked experience. He's got some really good photos in his Flickr stream. That guy who photoshopped the sign into the family should have instantly been kicked out simply for that level of photoshopping, never mind using the family that way.
Click to expand...


I said exactly the same thing when he did that,
but then when he never got booted out, then I thought, actually he won't go, his pictures are controversial, so they will want him in for the interest factor he'll probably end up winning it
 
I don't agree he should have been booted for the level of photoshopping - in my opinion that is an important part of the final image as the composition. That is, after all, a major benefit and enhancement of digital photography.

However, the fact that the guy did what he did, the level he did it at and the subjects used I thought was highly provocative and the Channel 4 lawyers should need more toilet rolls than usual!! And yes, I think he should have been kicked out for that, but also because I personally didn't think his images were good, ideas clever or end results as good as Jays!
 
Vinny said:
I don't agree he should have been booted for the level of photoshopping - in my opinion that is an important part of the final image as the composition. That is, after all, a major benefit and enhancement of digital photography.
Click to expand...

I have a strict rule about my photography and well photography in general. I only manipulate the light my camera caught. Once I start adding elements into the shot I'm not a photographer anymore because I didn't photograph that scene. I made it. I did feel that a lot of them were trying a bit too hard to make photos, by setting up certain elements. They were at Brighton pier in stormy weather, surely plenty of chances for a good street photo. I do appreciate that its easy to criticise from my couch, and I know I wouldn't have got a good studio photo but thats because its not my thing. Maybe that was what they wanted, people who may have talent and wanted to push them outside their comfort zones to make good TV. I dunno. I saw some of the photos on the site from people who entered and I guess I was expecting something more.

I am annoyed at their choices somewhat given some of the people who entered from here. Of course I would have loved to have been picked, it'd be stupid if I said I wasn't. However, I currently have a photo in a national gallery, I'm opening an exhibition in 7 weeks and I'm working on 2 books. So screw em :p
 
petemc said:
I am annoyed at their choices somewhat given some of the people who entered from here. Of course I would have loved to have been picked, it'd be stupid if I said I wasn't. However, I currently have a photo in a national gallery, I'm opening an exhibition in 7 weeks and I'm working on 2 books. So screw em :p
Click to expand...

are you able to mention what books yet? or is it a little hush hush for the timebeing. good luck with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top