How to Take Stunning Pictures On TV

fabs said:
Well I quite enjoyed it.
Click to expand...
So did I.

Rather more than I expected back in July too....
Voyager said:
Stills photography, as a subject for TV, is pretty limited. As an art it is pretty restricted to a particular audience - and one that most will consider the end result (a photograph) is not best displayed on a flickering screen. If it is a 'how-to' it is in danger of alienating those already in the know and being too difficult for novices to follow....
Click to expand...
fabs said:
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.
Click to expand...
Indeed. If people want to know how to use the settings on their cameras all they need to do is read the instruction book.
 
What can shallow DOF do for your (street) portraits, especially when you have a cluttered background? Look here (thanks for the examples, Dave)....

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=232137

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=215542

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=218931

and what about this beauty - http://starrider.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p815517996-4.jpg

DOF - A powerful creative tool, completely and utterly ignored in that "stunning portrait masterclass".
 
tdodd said:
What can shallow DOF do for your (street) portraits, especially when you have a cluttered background?
Click to expand...

Nothing when your compact has a maximum aperture of f3.5 and the sensor is the size of a pin head....
 
Even on the "reality" programme "The Garage", if anyone here has ever seen it, they added really technical animations showing mechanics and with proper easy-to-understand explanations of how stuff works. And that wasn't even called "How to fix your own car", it was just a silly entertainment programme about people not getting along in a workplace!

The photograghy programme was rubbish and pointless, there's NO excuse!

My non-photographer partner learnt nothing. They talk about compotion but fail to explain how. When he picks the final photo with the soldier he says it "works" but not why. Nothing about positioning in the frame or lines in the picture...

I bet anyone who watched it was itching for explanations but they never came!

Rubbish...
 
I thought it was ok, but I certainly didn't learn anything I didn't already know, but like many have said it wasn't really aimed at the vast majority of people here.

If I was a total beginner it would probably have been a good introduction and may have made me want to go out and find out more about the subject. However I agree that it did mention things and then ignore exactly how to do it, which kind of defeats the point and also gives a false impression that it's as easy as point and shoot.

It certainly focused more on the creative aspect of taking portraits (composition, lighting etc) rather than the more technical ones like aperture, shutter speed, exposure etc. I remember when they mentioned "exposing for the sky" and my wife turned round and said "what the hell does that mean?" :D

I guess there's a limit to how much you can fit into a 30 minute program though, so as a way of getting people interested it served it's purpose, and that can only be a good thing really.
 
The biggest problem is it is on Channel 5 and I can't video it, if I could, I could watch and fast forward just on the offchance there might be something more interesting than the credits at the end!
 
morsing said:
!

The photograghy programme was rubbish and pointless, there's NO excuse!

My non-photographer partner learnt nothing. They talk about compotion but fail to explain how. When he picks the final photo with the soldier he says it "works" but not why. Nothing about positioning in the frame or lines in the picture...

I bet anyone who watched it was itching for explanations but they never came!

Rubbish...
Click to expand...

And that's the core of it: you could learn very little form the programme. You either knew it already or they didn't explain so you couldn't learn.
 
simonw said:
And that's the core of it: you could learn very little form the programme. You either knew it already or they didn't explain so you couldn't learn.
Click to expand...

But that's just the point. It isn't supposed to be instructional, it's an entertainment programme. The "How to" bit is aimed at the participants, not the viewers.
 
fabs said:
But that's just the point. It isn't supposed to be instructional, it's an entertainment programme. The "How to" bit is aimed at the participants, not the viewers.
Click to expand...

Reading bits on the five and Lumix websites, then it's a little mis-leading IMHO
 
fabs said:
But that's just the point. It isn't supposed to be instructional, it's an entertainment programme. The "How to" bit is aimed at the participants, not the viewers.
Click to expand...

Well if that was its aim - it failed IMHO and of those members of my family who watched it.
 
simonw said:
Well if that was its aim - it failed IMHO and of those members of my family who watched it.
Click to expand...
The TV station exists to profit from selling advertising spots and they charge more for those by the viewing figures of any particular programme.

Congratulations, you and your family bumped up those numbers. So it didn't fail! :D
 
Voyager said:
The TV station exists to profit from selling advertising spots and they charge more for those by the viewing figures of any particular programme.

Congratulations, you and your family bumped up those numbers. So it didn't fail! :D
Click to expand...

As they have no way of knowing whether we were watching or not, then no they didn't.
 
I've just seen this, as I recorded it. "Stunning" is hardly how I'd describe the finished products. Satisfactory, may be, and certainly better than yer average p+s on auto with flash. I think it would have been interesting to know what settings the lab rats used, did they learn anything about controlling their cameras or was it just down to the 'light' and the 'composition'. For a "how to" program there wasn't a lot of "how to".
 
Voyager said:
It's a complicated statistical process but BARB know pretty well how many people were watching.
Click to expand...

As I'm not part of the viewing panel my viewing has no impact on the reported viewer numbers.

Anyway doesn't get away from the point that the programme was IMHO no good.
 
Some people liked it, some people didn't..

.. fair summary?
 
Alastair said:
Some people liked it, some people didn't..

.. fair summary?
Click to expand...

Did you like it? Your posts seemed to argue that some people could have like it but without firm proof.

Do you know anyone who liked it?
 
simonw said:
As I'm not part of the viewing panel my viewing has no impact on the reported viewer numbers.
Click to expand...
Your interest is not unique enough to deviate from the norm so measuring your actual viewing is not really necessary.
simonw said:
Anyway doesn't get away from the point that the programme was IMHO no good.
Click to expand...
Your opinion of the 'goodness' of the programme is probably not of interest to Five. They will still be hoping to sell more advertising on the strength of the viewing figures though.

If your (viewing) type continue to watch they will be pleased. If you switch over to Channel 4 news they will be less impressed - but you'll probably stay watching in case you get to see Suzi Perry in shorter skirt - the producers know their market. :D
 
morsing said:
Did you like it? Your posts seemed to argue that some people could have like it but without firm proof.

Do you know anyone who liked it?
Click to expand...

I did like it.

And I'm going to watch the others in the series and judge then again when we get to the end. It's a simple and accessible format for the early evening. It needed some minor editting - I agree that the "exposing for the sky" comment was mistake to include. But noone has really suggested anything better that could fit into a 30 minute teatime slot. To go into full-blown technical details would require an hour-long show and it would still be teaching most of the people on this forum how to suck eggs. You'd still be complaining.

As I've said before.. one programme about the hobby of photography is better than none. Would you really want to go back to last week when there were no programmes about photography? It has to start somewhere, and the programme shown on Tuesday was as good a start as any other.

Let the series get to the end.. review it again and see what you think of it as a whole. Then get on to Channel 5 and tell them where you'd like them to go next.
 
Alastair said:
Let the series get to the end.. review it again and see what you think of it as a whole. Then get on to Channel 5 and tell them where you'd like them to go next.
Click to expand...

I actually watched the whole episode today..... I have to agree with Alastair... gonna watch the series and then decide if I've learned anything, you never know that might have been deliberately setup like that to get the viewers in
 
I miss the days that i can barley remember when people first started getting sky satellite, and on discovery there'd be really geeky workshop-y type shows, even on normal tv there was stuff that got into the nitty gritty of things. Nowadays everything is just aimed at the widest possible demographic possible and is usually just froth. I suppose thats why i like to watch stuff like this on youtube instead, once you find a good channel or two, its cool. Its almost like having friends that share the same passion as you.

Adey
 
Voyager said:
Your interest is not unique enough to deviate from the norm so measuring your actual viewing is not really necessary.

Your opinion of the 'goodness' of the programme is probably not of interest to Five. They will still be hoping to sell more advertising on the strength of the viewing figures though.

If your (viewing) type continue to watch they will be pleased. If you switch over to Channel 4 news they will be less impressed - but you'll probably stay watching in case you get to see Suzi Perry in shorter skirt - the producers know their market. :D
Click to expand...
Interesting what you seem to think you know about me. Is that your car that's been parked outside my house?
:)
 
I found it to feel rather rushed in the 25 minute or so it had. A one hour show might have been a better format.
 
Adey said:
I miss the days that i can barley remember when people first started getting sky satellite, and on discovery there'd be really geeky workshop-y type shows, even on normal tv there was stuff that got into the nitty gritty of things. Nowadays everything is just aimed at the widest possible demographic possible and is usually just froth. I suppose thats why i like to watch stuff like this on youtube instead, once you find a good channel or two, its cool. Its almost like having friends that share the same passion as you.

Adey
Click to expand...

Too right! I remember when I was a bit younger (probably about 12 years ago or so) I used to love watching aviation documentaries on Discovery, as they were genuinely interesting and I actually learnt quite a lot from them.

Nowadays it's just "top 10 best fighters" or reality shows disguised as documentaries. Barely any facts are imparted as all their programmes are aimed at grabbing the attention of as many people as possible instead of being genuinely interesting, which is annoying.
 
Hi

Just got back from holiday, so haven't had time to reply, I enjoyed the programme, but didnt learn anything, and I was a bit a let down, I'll watch the rest of the series though
 
Last edited:
Photodiva said:
Compared to that series with the fashion photographer "Rankin" who re-created a number of classic photos with his own take,
http://robertbenson.com/blog/2009/01/24/famous-fashion-photos-recreated/
this programme rates pretty low on my scale of 1-10.
Click to expand...

But the Rankin programme was more Sunday evening BBC4 and not tea-time Channel 5 mid-week. It wasn't even the same subject (pro re-shoots classic photos vs. general public snappers) except in the very broadest sense.

How to take stunning pictures isn't trying to be Seven photographs that changed fashion or The genius of photography or The man that shot the '60s. Photography doesn't have to be high-brow and serious. The vast majority of camera owners are only looking for a better snap, but that's not to say there's nothing wrong with studying the elite in photography - it's just not good to be elitist about it.


Has anyone come across reviews or comments about the programme in non-photography forums?

Non-photographers (or rather people who own cameras but don't consider themselves photographers) that I know are generally saying they liked the concept (simple, non-technical, take-home tips) but felt the format could be improved (not enough time spent really explaining what those tips meant).
 
Personally was very disappointed with it, and my wife who is a non-photographer thought it was pointless. I will probably watch it again (though not if it clashes with the football again :)) just to laugh at how poor it is and there's no other photo shows. It's certainly not must view television, and can't help feeling they could've done so much more that would have benefited everyone - including their ratings - much more.

Composition - the message was "good compositions is good", but didn't explain what good was (other than moving some pictures around to have a clear bit of wall?)

Natural lighting - can't complain about that, but beyond sticking all of your subjects next to a window they didn't explain what/why/how.

Making your subject comfortable - easy to say, not so easy to do.

The show takeaway then seems to be: stick all of your subjects next to a window with a plain wall behind them. Oh, and offer them a cup of tea before you start :)

Without having to get all technical and with a better format (i.e. the whole "first half to learn, second half to practice" is such a cliche and time wasting approach) they could have covered the above points, been just as entertaining and been educational.

Some ideas off the top of my head:

- don't bother with the first half "learning workshop", give them a pro each and send them out on assignment ("learn on the job")
- have the pro explain and demonstrate the point he's trying to get across using examples of good light/bad light (e.g. side lighting from window versus on camera flash in darkened room, try the same shot from variety of angles and positions and explain why one might be better than the others, etc)
- show some real rapport between pro, student and subject. "Stand here" "what about sitting here?" doesn't really cut it for me. They could have had some good banter going on that would have been entertaining as well as functional.
- tackle the "poor snapshots" that they showed upfront in the show, and actually suggest what's wrong with them and how you might avoid them (rolling that in to the pro tips).

So much potential, very poor execution IMO.
 
I read the title and thought it meant how to take stunning pictures in TV (mode) ;)
 
Although I have found this dissappointing on a personal level, I do kinda agree with Alastair and let's see all 6 episodes before adding too much criticism. Although I can't see it pleasing me or many peeps on here, it may be a start of other 'tography programmes. But I will also keep watching stuff on Youtube and Vimeo as well as my subscription to PT4U.
 
dfawkes said:
Some ideas off the top of my head:

- don't bother with the first half "learning workshop", give them a pro each and send them out on assignment ("learn on the job")
- have the pro explain and demonstrate the point he's trying to get across using examples of good light/bad light (e.g. side lighting from window versus on camera flash in darkened room, try the same shot from variety of angles and positions and explain why one might be better than the others, etc)
- show some real rapport between pro, student and subject. "Stand here" "what about sitting here?" doesn't really cut it for me. They could have had some good banter going on that would have been entertaining as well as functional.
- tackle the "poor snapshots" that they showed upfront in the show, and actually suggest what's wrong with them and how you might avoid them (rolling that in to the pro tips).

So much potential, very poor execution IMO.
Click to expand...

I agree that doing some of the above would have made a better, more informative show, however the problem is that to fit in all of the above would take more than a 25 minute show, and would also run the risk of becoming overly technical to the people that this programme was, afterall, aimed at (i.e. not people like you or me).

I totally agree that they could and should have gone into a bit more detail about what actually makes a good picture and give examples of what is wrong with certain pictures (people tend to learn better from seeing what's wrong and how to change it).

At the end of the day you can't please everyone, but personally I thought it wasn't that bad. I didn't learn anything much myself but if the idea was to get people who simply take snaps more interested in photography, then I think it was a good introduction.
 
Tonight's show is the one I'm least looking forward to.. I can't help thinking that a child's birthday would be a better Celebration subject than a wedding.. which is bound to antagonise a lot of people on here unless they're only going to focus on guest candids.

One advantage of the flaws already seen in episode 1 is that it's given me a lot of ideas how to do it better when it comes to workshops for our local group (shameless plug, we've a series of studio evenings planned for Autumn..).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top