Sky Arts ~ Masters of Photography

Messages
420
Name
Darryl
Edit My Images
No
Like all photography, it's personal. I can remember the first series and now this one, I'd say 60-70% of the shots they dismissed.
 
Messages
1,560
Name
Eloise
Edit My Images
Yes
Think one of the 2 who didn't fill the brief should have gone... or the other in the bottom 2.
I would agree. I know it’s not claimed to be a competition for professionals / aspiring professionals, but surely the first criteria over the success of a photography project is that it achieves the brief...
 
Messages
1,542
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
I would agree. I know it’s not claimed to be a competition for professionals / aspiring professionals, but surely the first criteria over the success of a photography project is that it achieves the brief...
It's billed as " a televised talent contest for photography," in which the winner receives €150,000, (or at least previous winners did) which puts it in the same league as "Britains got talent" (which I don't watch.)
Applications for entries were posted some time ago and some previous entrants have been professional photographers.
How many armchair critics here actually submitted a portfolio for consideration as an entrant?
 
Messages
1,560
Name
Eloise
Edit My Images
Yes
It's billed as " a televised talent contest for photography," in which the winner receives €150,000, (or at least previous winners did) which puts it in the same league as "Britains got talent" (which I don't watch.)
Applications for entries were posted some time ago and some previous entrants have been professional photographers.
How many armchair critics here actually submitted a portfolio for consideration as an entrant?
WTF!

So because it's a "a televised talent contest for photography" and because I don't consider myself good enough to be an entrant ... I'm not allowed to comment?

Do you disagree on my comment or not - or just want to be bitchy?

Surely if its a "talent contest for photography" the first point of reference for each challenge should be "does it fit the brief"?
 
Messages
1,655
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
How many armchair critics here actually submitted a portfolio for consideration as an entrant?
I think viewing figures would be pretty poor if only those who applied were eligible to have an opinion.
Pretty sure audience debate and discussion is the life blood of the shows like this.
 
Messages
1,296
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
I think viewing figures would be pretty poor if only those who applied were eligible to have an opinion.
Pretty sure audience debate and discussion is the life blood of the shows like this.
...Perhaps they should change it to an audience vote (via a premium rate number, of course), with the judges having a final say on which of the bottom two get eliminated...:exit:
 
Messages
1,090
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
...Perhaps they should change it to an audience vote (via a premium rate number, of course), with the judges having a final say on which of the bottom two get eliminated...:exit:
I don’t think enough people watch the program for that to be honest. Viewing figures must be around 500k max over Europe. It’ll be on different times and o those viewers, I’d imagine a vast amount of them won’t watch it as it’s broadcast which would make for a messy means of voting and also a likely bias towards own country competing members.

There’s two reasons why the UK never gets very far in Eurovision. 1 - our entries are always rubbish (which doesn’t help) and 2 - as much as we like to think we are loved as a nation, the reality is we just aren’t.
 
Messages
96
Edit My Images
No
Agreed on Nora, she was my pick in terms of who should go, i thought she was a bit rude about the cat too at one stage and just thought that when the woman sees the show she will probably be annoyed. I actually liked Danyella's shot, definitely not an easy subject either, but i think the pig shot was my favourite. I was quite annoyed at their comments regarding Marietta because i thought her actual idea was a very good one and showed that the dog depends on her due to only having three legs in the same way a human does on it's dog but they seemed to pass that off as nonsense despite some of the utter tripe that some people come out with the try and justify their photos story wise at other times that they lap up.
I agree, it was a good idea, but I don't think it was the idea that the judges were critical of, it was more the execution of that idea and that the story wasn't obvious without the explanation given (although as you said, that's often the case and the judges seem to lap some of that up when it's not always obvious in the picture). Perhaps having the dog standing and the owner's arm in place of the 4th leg would have worked better at conveying the story, though maybe that would not made such an aesthetically pleasing picture.

I also agree about Nora, and Monika, their pictures didn't meet the brief, there was no relationship on show between pets and owner, but despite this, I still think their photos were better than Federica's which just looked badly composed and messy and didn't meet the brief that well with the obscured face also obscuring the relationship. I guess it comes down to how important the brief is to the judges compared to the quality of the submitted photos, and from this I'd say not that important, which begs the question of why set a brief in the first place if it's not going to be considered in the judging. I also wonder if they took the previous week's photos into consideration with this, as I think both Nora and Monika had a better week than Federica last week too.
 
Messages
586
Name
Col
Edit My Images
Yes
@Mumbles agreed regarding the brief, if its not important then don't set it or make it clear that it isn't important although in my opinion i think it should be important. Any competition needs rules and they should be adhered to or those who go against them should be penalised (especially since there is a lot of money on the line, fairness matters). I think if you detract the importance of it the contestants can pretty much just submit something very artistic that has no bearing on the brief that its pointless and actually negates the challenge involved in the show.
 
Messages
96
Edit My Images
No
@Mumbles agreed regarding the brief, if its not important then don't set it or make it clear that it isn't important although in my opinion i think it should be important. Any competition needs rules and they should be adhered to or those who go against them should be penalised (especially since there is a lot of money on the line, fairness matters). I think if you detract the importance of it the contestants can pretty much just submit something very artistic that has no bearing on the brief that its pointless and actually negates the challenge involved in the show.
I think the brief is important too, but then you get into interpretation and how rigid you expect the contestants to stick to the brief. It could be argued that Nora, and Monika, by submitting a picture of a pet and it's owner, albeit cutoff or out of focus, was just enough to satisfy the brief, though I wouldn't agree with that.
 
Messages
586
Name
Col
Edit My Images
Yes
Interpretation is fine but when the brief is worded something along the lines of "show the pet bringing joy to the owner" (paraphrasing there obviously) and then they take a picture where you can only see the owner's hands therefore not showing any emotion then to me that doesn't fall under interpretation it falls under copping out because they didn't get the shot they wanted. Don't get me wrong i don't think in a creative subject such as photography that the rules can be treated as black and white because there has to be some interpretation allowed, but there is a line where to me you have to say ok no, that just doesn't get close enough to be considered adequate.

I will get off my soapbox now :D
 
Messages
96
Edit My Images
No
Interpretation is fine but when the brief is worded something along the lines of "show the pet bringing joy to the owner" (paraphrasing there obviously) and then they take a picture where you can only see the owner's hands therefore not showing any emotion then to me that doesn't fall under interpretation it falls under copping out because they didn't get the shot they wanted. Don't get me wrong i don't think in a creative subject such as photography that the rules can be treated as black and white because there has to be some interpretation allowed, but there is a line where to me you have to say ok no, that just doesn't get close enough to be considered adequate.

I will get off my soapbox now :D
BIB. I'm on the same side of the line as you, but it looks like judges draw the line elsewhere.
 
Messages
11,554
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
It's billed as " a televised talent contest for photography," in which the winner receives €150,000, (or at least previous winners did) which puts it in the same league as "Britains got talent" (which I don't watch.)
Applications for entries were posted some time ago and some previous entrants have been professional photographers.
How many armchair critics here actually submitted a portfolio for consideration as an entrant?

Funniest comment on the thread. Do you do stand up as well?
 
Messages
517
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
No
Interpretation is fine but when the brief is worded something along the lines of "show the pet bringing joy to the owner" (paraphrasing there obviously) and then they take a picture where you can only see the owner's hands therefore not showing any emotion then to me that doesn't fall under interpretation it falls under copping out because they didn't get the shot they wanted. Don't get me wrong i don't think in a creative subject such as photography that the rules can be treated as black and white because there has to be some interpretation allowed, but there is a line where to me you have to say ok no, that just doesn't get close enough to be considered adequate.

I will get off my soapbox now :D
Mmm...It's interesting. Whilst I thoughts Nora's image was a bit 'safe' I thought it did meet the brief well. It shows exactly the relationship emotionally she thought the lady had with her cat. I immediately thought of winter night, fireside, watching tv cuddling her precious pet. Just because there wasn't a face doesn't mean emotion can't be conveyed. However, it was a 'nice' photo, just not that amazing.

The meercat one again was ok but just not very moving and therefore I thought the judges comments were correct, it had less 'feeling' and was just a quirky angle of a lady holding an unusual pet. She could have almost semi mocked the owner and portrayed the meercat as a fashion accessory given the ladies clothing! They didn't say in the brief that the relationship had to be a positive or pc one!

My point though is about emotion and relationship. That can be conveyed well without a face/more of the human in shot and to me the Cat shot especially met the brief. Ho hum, we all see things differently I guess but the right image was selected as the bottom one I think. I could see what she was trying to do but it was a case of the idea clouding her judgement of the final shot.
 
Messages
11,554
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
The cat shot was by far and away the worst of the lot. For one principal reason:

In pet photography, where ever possible, you never show (or imply) the animal being held against it's will. Which is the case in this shot.
 
Messages
14,637
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
The cat shot was by far and away the worst of the lot. For one principal reason:

In pet photography, where ever possible, you never show (or imply) the animal being held against it's will. Which is the case in this shot.
Yes. The cat looked like it was being held, looked more like an outtake from a Bond villain scene!
 
Messages
1,542
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
Funniest comment on the thread. Do you do stand up as well?
Oh yes - I'm here most nights!

The point I was trying to make was, it's an entertainment show which just happens to feature photography rather than singing, dancing, juggling or anything else.

Far too many here are taking it too seriously, or are they just jealous that the "winner" receives €100,000?
 
Messages
11,554
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
Oh yes - I'm here most nights!

The point I was trying to make was, it's an entertainment show which just happens to feature photography rather than singing, dancing, juggling or anything else.

Far too many here are taking it too seriously, or are they just jealous that the "winner" receives €100,000?

Whereas the point that you actually made was that no one is fit to critique the images unless they've applied to go on the show.

As I said, risible.
 
Messages
1,560
Name
Eloise
Edit My Images
Yes
The point I was trying to make was, it's an entertainment show which just happens to feature photography rather than singing, dancing, juggling or anything else.
Yes it’s an entertainment show... and we’re extending the entertainment by discussing it. We (at least I) take it as seriously as we take Bake Off or Masterchef.
 
Messages
9,890
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Before even reading anyone else's comments on ep-2, i'll throw my own out there:

They're far too easy on this Flint guy, I don't know if it's because they are afraid to offend because he has Autism? But I know that my own daughter has cerebral Palsy and I tell her all the time that her singing sucks and never to put herself forward for BGT :D ... we have a good laugh about it, and I will never give her false hope or lie to her ... seriously, she couldn't sing to save her life!

2 weeks in a row now I would have selected Flint's offerings among the weakest, he hasn't a notion how to work studio lighting, but let's pretend he is intentionally over exposing these bland images that the judges are wetting themselves over!

I was delighted to see Danyelle turn it around, though her image wasn't my pick of the bunch, it would have been the snake shot - felt personally that strong, contrasty B&W would have suited the image better but I like how he processed it all the same.

I did get it right on the poorest image, the guide dog one, I get what she was attempting, but I thought it was very poor, covering the guy's face because ... he's blind?? er, better ways to convey this IMO

Anyway, FLINT OUT!!!! let's see how he does on briefs that don't include flash as a crutch!
 
Messages
9,890
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Far too many here are taking it too seriously, or are they just jealous that the "winner" receives €100,000?

Your previous post was ridiculous enough, but this ^ made me laugh .... out of pity.

What precisely is "taking it too seriously"? Because we want to feel involved? because we like to offer an opinion? That is the point of the show! As for the 'jealous' comment .... Someone wins the national lottery and Euro millions every other week, and it could have been me, I despise humanity because of this .... get a grip will ya :D thought it was £150K btw
 
Messages
1,249
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
I agree the cat image was particularly bad.
The prize in previous years was €150,000.
This year it is €100,000.
 
Messages
9,890
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Well it is a shame, because I'd like to see more photography shows on Arts. If MOP did very well, they'd be much more inclined to show more.
 
Messages
1,216
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
No
Well it is a shame, because I'd like to see more photography shows on Arts. If MOP did very well, they'd be much more inclined to show more.
There are a number of other photography programmes on Sky Arts and other channels. Using the Sky Q search feature I have found a number. Might be worth another thread listing them.
 
Messages
1,216
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
No
Off topic, but several people liked the post above where I mentioned other photography programmes on TV so I have started a new thread which can be found here - https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/photography-on-tv.680142/

To bring it back on topic, I thought the general standard in episode three was poor, but thought the right one went home.
 
Messages
14,637
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
Off topic, but several people liked the post above where I mentioned other photography programmes on TV so I have started a new thread which can be found here - https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/photography-on-tv.680142/

To bring it back on topic, I thought the general standard in episode three was poor, but thought the right one went home.
Yes, the idea was different but very poorly executed. Then again I though the 'self portrait' guy was lucky to stay. Loved the mirror shot and the cable car one.
 
Messages
586
Name
Col
Edit My Images
Yes
definitely think the right one went home this week and agreed on the self portrait one too, that said i didn't really think much of many of the shots this week. The only one i really felt portrayed the effect people have had on the landscape was the cable car shot and that was really because the atmosphere was so bleak to go with the man made structure that it worked. I tell a lie, i quite liked the cross and satellite mast on the mountain top but that silly bint went with her shining themed shot instead...
 
Messages
1,296
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
... I tell a lie, i quite liked the cross and satellite mast on the mountain top but that silly bint went with her shining themed shot instead...
Agree - she decided not to use an image that could have been a contender for the top 2, and instead went for one that left here in the bottom 2.
I did wonder if the judges were deliberately hard on her for that, as I though the 'self-portrait' and 'Deliberate blur' images were also contenders for the bottom 2.
 
Messages
14,637
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
Yes, the deliberate blur was shocking. I thought the 'horror' man in plough was ok, but didn't like the cross/mast one!
 
Messages
96
Edit My Images
No
A rare week where I tended to agree with the judges. Loved the mirror one, liked the cable car one, didn't really like any of the others and the deliberate blur was terrible. I also thought the right person went this time; for me that wasn't a landscape she presented, and again as these competitors tend to do, she gave some spiel about deforestation and what not, but without her explaining that's what the picture was about, it really was anyone's guess as to what she was trying to convey.
 
Top