Digital Picture of Britain Shortlist

Matt

Matt

TPer Emeritus
Messages
22,999
Name
matt
Edit My Images
Yes
To be fair there aren't many that I would call 'drivel'. That said there are a good number that even I can find fault with.

The overall standard of the entries must have been pretty low, which is a shame.
 
thats the point Gfk, they had, in each category, 100 pages of images showing at any one time, with 15 pictures to a page, and these pictures are the best they could find? I think they missed out some cracking stuff,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/apictureofbritain/gallery/
thats the main gallery, look through that and you will see what i mean!
 
EosD said:
hehe no Marcel, fully expected to see some outstanding shots in the shortlist, and have been shocked not to,

a good example, what the hell does this do to warrent being in the short list??
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/apictureofbritain/gallery/shortlist/single/england_southeast_rural_5.shtml
Click to expand...

Hmmm.... would you want pictures of your half-naked children all over the internet these days?? And yes, subject matter aside, its a truly crap photo.

And here's another one. Is it me, or is the horizon completely cock-eyed in this one?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/apictureofbritain/gallery/shortlist/single/northern_ireland_urban_4.shtml
 
To be honest, I think they have really missed the boat here.

There's much better in the gallery that didn't make the shortlist, although there are some good ones that made it through.
 
yeah some good stuff did make it through, but your right boat missed for sure!

GfK - yes m8 thats cockeyed!
 
I think you're all missing the point, unless I'm mistaken the shortlist is made up of images that got the most public votes? i.e. whoever got the most mates to rate their images highly (as we saw some doing on here ;) )
 
the shortlist was made up from the highest rated shots(or was supposed to have been)

If this was the case, then they failed miserably.
 
Steep said:
I think you're all missing the point, unless I'm mistaken the shortlist is made up of images that got the most public votes? i.e. whoever got the most mates to rate their images highly (as we saw some doing on here ;) )
Click to expand...

yeah, apparently my old man doesn't have enough relatives with pc's LOL!

Seriously though, I'm not sure if they did use the public vote to determine the shortlist entries, as this system is open to abuse by knowledgable (sp?) people.

I'm also not convinced that the shortlist entries have been judged purely on photographic merit. I would imagine, looking at the shots, that the judges brief was something along the line of 'photo must provide an atmosphere or sense of, and accurately portray the subject category' Hence the slightly dodgy aspect of some of the entries.

You should also bear in mind that the competition was open to all ages and abilites so the BBC would'vge done all they can to keep the playing field level, as it were.
 
i think its a shame, they could have unearthed some real talent with this, but if they have selected pictures to meet an agenda rather than those that are good photographs, then its all been a waste of time!
 
Remember that the public voted. Normal people don't have any taste :) They can't use PC's, they aren't "with it", they fear new technology and appear on BBC1 home make over shows because they have no real taste. There are some very good shots in there, and some terrible shots. None of mine are there and the only explination that I can think of is that there were too many shots to view. I'm sure the same can be said of the rest of us here :)
 
yeah your right Pete, far too many shots, who is going to sit through 100 pages or 15 shots per page?
 
petemc said:
Remember that the public voted. Normal people don't have any taste :) They can't use PC's, they aren't "with it", they fear new technology and appear on BBC1 home make over shows because they have no real taste. There are some very good shots in there, and some terrible shots. None of mine are there and the only explination that I can think of is that there were too many shots to view. I'm sure the same can be said of the rest of us here :)
Click to expand...

Couldn't have put it better myself. Both the pictures I entered were good enough to display on the rolling gallery on their digital interactive program but neither even made it onto the regional category shortlists. Not sour grapes but when I see some of the pictures that did it it makes me somewhat disappointed.
 
Also I think there are some sad people out there.
It turns out my shots were averaging between 1 and 2 out of 10 a few weeks ago.

Now they may not be great but I don't think they are as bad as that.
So I can only assume someone was deliberately marking them down.

Maybe they're crap and I'm paranoid.

Here's a link to some of my shots. Are they that bad. :nut:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/apps/ifl/arts/...AMP;sortsense_1=DESC;preferred_range_length=&

http://www.bbc.co.uk/apps/ifl/arts/...AMP;sortsense_1=DESC;preferred_range_length=&

http://www.bbc.co.uk/apps/ifl/arts/...AMP;sortsense_1=DESC;preferred_range_length=&

http://www.bbc.co.uk/apps/ifl/arts/...AMP;sortsense_1=DESC;preferred_range_length=&

Cameron
 
nice shots you posted there Cameron, proves my point entirely

Adrian - I had a shot or 2 on the rolling thang too...never mind. Fingers crossed that the judges pick the best of the them
 
Garnock said:
Also I think there are some sad people out there.
It turns out my shots were averaging between 1 and 2 out of 10 a few weeks ago.

Now they may not be great but I don't think they are as bad as that.
So I can only assume someone was deliberately marking them down.

Maybe they're crap and I'm paranoid.

Here's a link to some of my shots. Are they that bad. :nut: Cameron
Click to expand...

No, they're far from bad :), and even if they were half as good, they'd still be a lot better than a lot of the shortlisted pics.

These were my 3 efforts..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/apps/ifl/arts/...AMP;sortsense_1=DESC;preferred_range_length=&

http://www.bbc.co.uk/apps/ifl/arts/...AMP;sortsense_1=DESC;preferred_range_length=&

http://www.bbc.co.uk/apps/ifl/arts/...AMP;sortsense_1=DESC;preferred_range_length=&
 
I never entered any of my shots. One because it's a rare thing for me to get off my arse and actually do something ;)
And secondly, I disapprove of the BBC's digital rights contract thingy when submitting, er, submissions to their 'features'.
 
Adrian said:
No, they're far from bad :), and even if they were half as good, they'd still be a lot better than a lot of the shortlisted pics.

These were my 3 efforts..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/apps/ifl/arts/...AMP;sortsense_1=DESC;preferred_range_length=&

http://www.bbc.co.uk/apps/ifl/arts/...AMP;sortsense_1=DESC;preferred_range_length=&

http://www.bbc.co.uk/apps/ifl/arts/...AMP;sortsense_1=DESC;preferred_range_length=&
Click to expand...



Adrian, those shots put most, if not all, of the shortlisted shots to shame.
Beautiful images.

Cameron
 
nice shots Adrian, once again proves the point
 
Garnock said:
Also I think there are some sad people out there.
It turns out my shots were averaging between 1 and 2 out of 10 a few weeks ago.

Now they may not be great but I don't think they are as bad as that.
So I can only assume someone was deliberately marking them down.

Maybe they're crap and I'm paranoid.

Here's a link to some of my shots. Are they that bad. :nut:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/apps/ifl/arts/...AMP;sortsense_1=DESC;preferred_range_length=&

http://www.bbc.co.uk/apps/ifl/arts/...AMP;sortsense_1=DESC;preferred_range_length=&

http://www.bbc.co.uk/apps/ifl/arts/...AMP;sortsense_1=DESC;preferred_range_length=&

http://www.bbc.co.uk/apps/ifl/arts/...AMP;sortsense_1=DESC;preferred_range_length=&

Cameron
Click to expand...

Cameron. Superb shots, especially the two moody ones with the mist rolling across the water. I'm gobsmacked they didn't get on the shortlist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top