How to Take Stunning Pictures On TV

Alastair said:
I doubt the members of this forum were the target viewing audience..

.. given some of the questions about photography I regularly see on non-photography forums I think this was at a level that could be understood by the majority. Anything that encourages a camera owner to stop and think about the shot they're taking is positive.

The number of people that don't shoot on auto is a small and statistically insiginificant proportion of the camera owning population. Anything too technical would gon straight past most people - and it would be next to impossible to cover these details for every phone cam, compact, bridge and entry-level DSLR on the market.

Overall I thuink this is a positive programme for the hobby of photography on tv.. and BBC4 can be left to deal with the art of photography.
Click to expand...

Very well said, it wasn't aimed at people with a good knowledge of photography, it was aimed at people with point and shoots, no technical talk as they shoot in auto or a Scene mode, I think overall it will make the facebook generation hopefully think a little about what they are shooting.
 
yeah the button layout on the back looked like a 5DII and the lens was a 50mm 1.4. Strangely exactly what combo is on the table next to me now. (just watched it on demand 5)

The show highlights alot of errors made by people that want to take a photo (on auto) but it just looks messy. So useing one source of light, thinking about clutter and positioning. Wasnt to impressed with the spray and pray attitude though.

I think the liveview thing was to make people with compacts feel comfortable and not that their equipment is no good. I dont care if it was an advert for panasonic surely the fact that a mobile phone captured an image that would happily reside on a wall says it all.

I agree with what has been mentioned that a series of shows with reviews, guest appearances and workshops would be nice. Aim it for people that have a ideal of shutter speed ISO and aperture.

Does anyone disagree that the images taken of the teacher and the soldier are good enough for publication as part of a story or editorial? The shots were never intended to be high end studio work.
 
joescrivens said:
that was pretty rubbish. didnt really teach anything, very surprised to see a show about portrait photography that didnt mention how to focus, where to focus or aperture and depth of field.

really what did they actually teach anyone?
Click to expand...

agree, it was rubbish, how can that "top photographer" say just be yourself and everything else. ANYONE could have said that to the 2 guys there.

I will still watch it and see what it is like....but not expecting much.
 
To get involved in a discussion on whether or not it's a 5DII, a 50mm f/1.4 or whether or not liveview should have been used by the pro kind of proves the point that TP is not the audience the programme makers had in mind. These are all irrelevant to the audience they want.

Maybe they put liveview on so the viewer can see what the pro is seeing when he looks through the viewfinder? If so, seems a reasonable idea.. can't think of a better way.

Let's let the show get through the first season of six episodes.. then maybe, if it doesn't get too much of a kicking, they can go into a bit more depth on season 2. To include from the start all the technical bits that have been discussed so far on this thread would need a programme two hours long and it would put off the audience they want from ever watching it - and the keen hobbyists/pros on here would still be complaining they didn't learn anything.

Let's not forget.. this is a move from having no mainstream programmes about encouraging photography as a hobby to having one. It's a gift horse to the hobby, and I for one am not going to spend too long giving it a dental check-up.
 
As someone who uses liveview a hell of a lot, I do find it a lot easier. In fairness to the program it did give me a couple of hints which I have already been told, but failed to see how I can impliment into my photography. Mainly use what lights available and use the settings that the model is comfortable with and familiar.
 
I thought that there would have been more info as it said it was aimed at novices .
Just hope the next ones are more informative and i dont think there was much even for a novice to learn from the 1st programe .:shake:
A very dissapointed Su.:(
 
I watched it and the most disappointing thing for me was that both the novice guys said they were currently taking photos in 'automatic mode' and wanted to move away from this habit - there was then no mention of any alternatives they used, what alternatives there were - they simply appeared to look like they continued in the same vain.

Great little programme for the person who would like to buy their first point and shoot, but lacked some of the fundamental techniques that are needed to take the so called 'stunning' photo. Also, why wasn't the audience introduced to the camera (lumix) and the lens that they used?!
 
What I expected and tbh I think some members are being a bit hard on the show, its not aimed at people who peruse photography as a hobby its for people who are just wanting to take a picture. If the show went straight into ISO, DOF etc people would simply turn it over. Maybe in the upcoming shows we will hear about the more technical in the upcoming shows, but it wont be anything that will help anyone who already knows the basics..... thats what this site is for :).

PS, not a bad competition prize..... I would obviously sell it on here and buy a Canon!!
 
Last edited:
I watched it as I was interviewed to go on it, that particular episode (portraits), obviously I didnt make it to the final cut. It was nice they had an ex-soldier and someone from an ethnic minority as their amateurs to represent a broad spread of the public. I thought they were both very photogenic and the black guy was actually very enjoyable to watch, probably both better than me in all respects and more their target audience age to boot. Ho hum - fame misses me again.

Programme content - my wife found it very lame and she was looking forward to someone explaining the technical side to her in a different way so that she could keep it on record and look back on it at later times, she felt they missed that badly.
Composition, lighting etc and making the model feel relaxed, all skirted over in broad terms as opposed to detailed terms. I also felt sorry for the guys as they were obviously nervous in the studio and had little or no idea of how to pose the model, a situation I have been in and wanted some tips, I didnt feel as if anything was given to them on that score either.
It seemed to me they had very little instruction (was this the case or did we only see some of what they were told?) and then thrown to the wolves of an assignment. I'm assuming they had a lot more instruction.

Stunning photographs - not in my view, merely passably acceptable (about the same standard as I think I have reached) so I was dissapointed in the programme content.

Matt
 
I watched it half heartedly, as it certainly didn't draw me in. What really got me was that they were whining on about cluttered backgrounds (which they chose!) but I didn't notice any mention of shallow DOF. Why not pop a 135/2 on the camera or an 85/1.2 - even the 50/1.4 - and watch that background melt? Bloody useless.
 
I was hugely disappointed by the program as well, I thought they would explain technical aspects on how to use a camera. I could have got those shots with my iPhone! Not really stunning pictures are they??
Will I be watching the second episode...probably only to see what they have in store for us next
 
Donki said:
What I expected and tbh I think some members are being a bit hard on the show, its not aimed at people who peruse photography as a hobby its for people who are just wanting to take a picture. If the show went straight into ISO, DOF etc people would simply turn it over. Maybe in the upcoming shows we will hear about the more technical in the upcoming shows, but it wont be anything that will help anyone who already knows the basics..... thats what this site is for :).

PS, not a bad competition prize..... I would obviously sell it on here and buy a Canon!!
Click to expand...

I think that is a fair and valid point.
 
have to agree with Alastair on this one. A lot of people on TP already have a good idea of ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed, composure etc. so probably won't gain too much from this programme, let's face it - if you're on TP then chances are that you're fairly interested in photography anyway.

It's clear that the programme is aimed at a mainstream audience who would like to improve their shooting and need some basic ideas/pointers to do that. If it wasn't it would be aired on some obscure channel in the middle of the night, not prime time viewing on Channel 5.

Let's not forget that there's also a hell of a lot of people that have spend good money on DSLR's and are still shooting using the Auto/Green Box mode. It's these people that I think will benefit the most, as well as those considering a step up from P&S cameras but are still a little daunted by DSLR's.

I think it's good that photography is being embraced by the TV folk to the extent that they're prepared to spend £'s producing and airing shows. Like Alastair says, let's see what the rest of the episodes bring and maybe subsequent series'.

Just my 2p worth

Alastair said:
To get involved in a discussion on whether or not it's a 5DII, a 50mm f/1.4 or whether or not liveview should have been used by the pro kind of proves the point that TP is not the audience the programme makers had in mind. These are all irrelevant to the audience they want.

Maybe they put liveview on so the viewer can see what the pro is seeing when he looks through the viewfinder? If so, seems a reasonable idea.. can't think of a better way.

Let's let the show get through the first season of six episodes.. then maybe, if it doesn't get too much of a kicking, they can go into a bit more depth on season 2. To include from the start all the technical bits that have been discussed so far on this thread would need a programme two hours long and it would put off the audience they want from ever watching it - and the keen hobbyists/pros on here would still be complaining they didn't learn anything.

Let's not forget.. this is a move from having no mainstream programmes about encouraging photography as a hobby to having one. It's a gift horse to the hobby, and I for one am not going to spend too long giving it a dental check-up.
Click to expand...
 
tdodd said:
I watched it half heartedly, as it certainly didn't draw me in. What really got me was that they were whining on about cluttered backgrounds (which they chose!) but I didn't notice any mention of shallow DOF. Why not pop a 135/2 on the camera or an 85/1.2 - even the 50/1.4 - and watch that background melt? Bloody useless.
Click to expand...

But you can't do that with your phone camera or a basic compact camera - and let's face it.. there's more photos taken these days on phones than anything else.

You've just listed three lenses.. £850, £1700, £280.. Suggesting that on a prime time Channel 5 programme aimed at the general population should suggest using a £1,700 lens is clearly not understanding the needs of the majority of camera users.

Note, I'm using the term camera users very specifically.. watching this type of programme is just the first step that hopefully some of them will take towards considering themselves photographers.

I have no connection to this programme.. but I can't help thinking that the majority of opinions on this thread smack more than a little of the arrogance of an elitist hobby. By all means have a little laugh at someone spending £3000 on professional equipment and leaving it in (P) mode whilst using pop-up flash to shoot the sunrise.. but please don't look down on those at the very beginning of trying to understand how to take better pictures with the phone in their hand.. at least, not unless you're looking down only in order to offer them a hand-up.

If the forum wants to welcome people that may have watched the show and decided they want to learn a little more.. wander through Google and come across this forum expecting a friendly welcome.. well.. we better take a couple of collective steps down the ladder and put the kettle on. If they find this thread they'll be straight out the door again.
 
:clap:

Fair point, and eloquently put Alastair.

Pete
 
Alastair said:
Let's not forget.. this is a move from having no mainstream programmes about encouraging photography as a hobby to having one. It's a gift horse to the hobby, and I for one am not going to spend too long giving it a dental check-up.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Agree 100% Alastair. Unless people were born with a camera in their hand and everything needed to be a 'David Bailey' or 'Lord Lichfield', then we have all been there learning and collecting knowledge from our peers and experts alike, a lot of people forget that.
 
The price of the lens is not the issue. A nifty fifty would have served almost as well as an example. My comments are nothing to do with elitism or arrogance, just the apparent (I did say my attention was half hearted) failure of the programme to capitalise on one of the major creative tools available to the photographer.

If the pro had use of a 50/1.4 lens then why not the students?
 
I don't think you get it Tim (you're not alone).

The price is very much the issue. This programme was clearly not intended for anyone that even knows what a 50mm f/1.4 is. We're talking a Gadget Show audience level.. a couple of rungs up the evolutionary ladder from Top Gear but highly unlikely to have seen The Genius of Photography.

The students had a very nice consumer camera provided by the sponsor, the pro had a pro camera.. the students were supposed to utilise some basic principles that could be applied by anyone using even the most basic of camera equipment.

In a 30 minute programme it would be foolish to even introduce more than 3 concepts, which allowing for the introduction and adverts leaves barely 5 minutes per principle.
  1. Choose your location carefully
  2. Make the best of available light
  3. Check the whole frame when composing to avoid dictractions and unwanted clutter
I think that as a take-home message from a single 30 minute programme that's quite enough to be going on with.

I provide some very basic photography advice and support on a fishkeeping forum (and point a lot of people here for tips and tutorials, but strangely enough not for the welcoming and supportive atmosphere).. this sort of level of show is exactly what a lot of non-photographers need and can understand. It gives them three very basic principles they can take on board, try out and see where it takes them.

This programme may not be for you.. but the programme makers are not going to lose any sleep over that. In fact, if they read through this thread they'll be very pleased to see that it did pass so many of you by.
 
Last edited:
Alastair said:
I don't think you get it Tim (you're not alone).
Click to expand...

I think I do get it, but I see an almighty gulf between the aspiration to "take stunning pictures" and the achievements in that first episode. Maybe we will have to wait till the final episode to be stunned, but according to the programme synopsis in my TV guide we should have been stunned already. This is what I was expecting from episode one (highlights are mine)....

Photography masterclass presented by Suzi Perry. Celebrity photographer Harry Borden instructs two budding snappers in how to turn simple snapshots of friends and family into stunning portraits. Harry's students are then put to the test with assignments that include producing a heroic portrait for the Help for Heroes charity.
Click to expand...

The programme can be aimed at any audience it likes, and that may not be enthusiasts and pros, but it would be nice if it met the expectations it sets for its audience. So far I don't believe it has. Far from being stunned, I am very underwhelmed.

I'm not even saying that I could do any better, but if someone tells me I'm going to be stunned then stunned is what I'd like to be. Is that wrong of me?
 
How to take slightly better snaps may have been a better tittle :LOL:
 
I can see where you're coming from Tim. And the show certainly wasn't without faults. We didn't see the "stunning" level of improvement demonstrated in the before and after portraits taken by the students.. the end results were very good (the war veteran in particular).. but it was clear that the two guys (and I note that it's mostly guys as the students over the course of the series) knew a bit about how to handle a camera from the start rather than being a couple of randoms off the street.

Now, if we'd seen someone go from a drunken Facebook snap in a pub toilet to the standard seen at the end of the show last night.. then that would have been the stunning improvement. And not unrealistic.

Given there are another five shows to come, if each show introduces three principles to the audience then by the end of the series they will have covered 18 learning points. Plenty of room to introduce concepts such as depth of field gradually. I really think people here are expecting too much from less than 30 minutes air time.

The complete episode list:

# Subject, professional
1. Portraits, Harry Borden
2. Celebration, Emily Quinton - yes, it looks like it's going to be a tutorial for wedding guests
3. Landscape, Charlie Waite
?. Action, Bob Martin
?. Animals, Tim Flach
?. Travel, Martin Parr

I'm not sure on the order of the last three, the website isn't clear. But if you take the follow-on from Portrait to Celebration you can see how the three concepts from last night could be retained and added to. It's about building up people's skills/knowledge at an appropriate pace. In fact the three prinspiles from last night nicely fit into all six episodes.. hmm.. could it be coincidence, or maybe the programme makers are planning ahead?

Unfortunately How to take slightly better snaps would be unlikely to do much for the advertisers or attract much of an audience.. but you've summed up the purpose of the show. Personally, I think I'll stick with it and see where it goes.
 
That was over too quickly and wasn't very informative at all. I spent most of the programme trying to spot which makes and models of camera / lenses they were using :)
 
Might be worth merging this with th'ther thread. <reported>
 
tdodd said:
I think I do get it, but I see an almighty gulf between the aspiration to "take stunning pictures" and the achievements in that first episode. Maybe we will have to wait till the final episode to be stunned, but according to the programme synopsis in my TV guide we should have been stunned already. This is what I was expecting from episode one (highlights are mine)....



The programme can be aimed at any audience it likes, and that may not be enthusiasts and pros, but it would be nice if it met the expectations it sets for its audience. So far I don't believe it has. Far from being stunned, I am very underwhelmed.

I'm not even saying that I could do any better, but if someone tells me I'm going to be stunned then stunned is what I'd like to be. Is that wrong of me?
Click to expand...

You'll be telling me next that you've never seen something over-sold ever before! :LOL:
 
Well, I'm a complete beginner and I was quite disappointed with the progrmme last night. I was looking forward to learning something or at least gaining a better understanding of how to use my camera but I felt the programme was superficial and "glossy". I wasn't expecting a full on tutorial - I understand that wasn't the aim despite the somewhat misleading adverts that promised a "masterclass" - but I was expecting a little more explanation for example, how to use the available light rather than just a tip to use it!

Perhaps half an hour is just not long enough but I do think the programme could and should have been more informative.

Oh - and I am not at all bothered about what camera they or the "pro" used and quite frankly I don't understand the snobbery of those who think it was important to figure out. The resulting pictures were good but not stunning imho.
 
Maybe we should be thankful they didnt spend the 1st 5 mins telling us how to switch the camera on.:shrug:
 
Just watched it online and have to come to it's defense and agree with the points made by Alistair. It gave three clear and undeniably important concepts for portraits, that would apply to anyone with any kind of camera, from a VGA phone camera to a Hasselblad $$$£$£££$$ system.

I get the feeling sometimes on photography forums that the equipment and technical side are more important than the shot itself. Of course it depends upon what field you are photographing but the end result is most important and perhaps returning to the basics is something we should all do more often. :)
 
Gold said:
I get the feeling sometimes on photography forums that the equipment and technical side are more important than the shot itself. Of course it depends upon what field you are photographing but the end result is most important and perhaps returning to the basics is something we should all do more often. :)
Click to expand...

Yes that is all very well , but i am sure there were many people like myself who would like to have some help with "getting away from the basics" and that is rather more what i was expecting , or should i say hoping for .;)
 
Simmotino said:
Given everyone seems to have been given Panasonic Lumix cameras to use, I think it's likely to be one giant advert personally.
Click to expand...

Panasonic have financed the whole series (6 x 30min).

http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_...asonic+Get+Picture+Perfect/5855349/index.html

This kind of programme is relatively inexpensive television to produce, so Panasonic will probably recoup their money (and then some) from the Lumix sales it generates.

Rough estimate: if each episode costs say £2,000 per minute to produce, that's £60k per episode. If each episode generated 300 sales of a Lumix G10 they'd probably break even.
 
Last edited:
redhed17 said:
Don't forget to take into account the 'competition' which will probably have more 2000 people entering at £1 a go. ;)
Click to expand...

Good point - I forgot about that. It's enough to cover the beer & bacon sandwiches budget for the production crew.:)
 
Well I quite enjoyed it. It was never supposed to be about how to work a camera, it is assumed that the students knew that. This was about how to take the photos (Composition, location, light etc. ). If they had started by explaining aperture, shutter speed, ISO etc, it would have taken the full half hour and they wouldn't have gotten around to taking any photos. Not good TV and half the audiance would have switched off/over pretty quickly.

I thought it quite interesting to watch the students take what they had learned and put in into practise.
 
In all honestey though, I don't think the audience learnt anything.
 
fabs said:
In all honesty, I'm not really sure that's the purpose of the program. I think it's mainly designed to make people think about what they are taking photos of and I think that's pretty much the message they got across.
Click to expand...

Maybe Marc. I will watch the rest of the series just to see how it develops.
It's strange that they they have produced a program aimed at Joe Blogs with a P&S and not to anyone with a genuine interest in photography. Perhaps its because they are after a wider audience. They do fishing programs (the angling kind) which seem to be aimed at the enthisast. Then there are the cookery programs, some to educate us on food and cooking and others just to entertain those who like food or celebrity chefs. The latter admittedly being on Channel 4.

Anyone remember Trade Secrets on BBC2? They did a toggery one with all sorts of homemade tips for the enthiests. Much more interesting and only about 10mins long.

Must learn how to spell entheiests???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top