Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by dream_police, May 30, 2018.
Just in case you weren't aware MoP is back on Sky Arts with a new series.
Just seen the first episode and not massively surprised at who went.
Missed it, thanks for the heads up. Repeated Saturday at 12 on Sky Arts, or online.
No spoilers please
'Cos I'm feeling mean.
some of them miss the brief
some of them hit the brief
some of them miss the brief as far as you're concerned but hit the brief as far as the judges are concerned
PS. I didn't watch it.
I went as far as the website. Arty f..stuff.. The scene - and seen too boringly often!
Well I quite like it
Thought it was an okay episode (1st one). Wasn't entirely convinced by some of the judging commentary as usual, but then it's heavily edited so hard to know exactly what they were saying. I loved some of the shots that didn't make it into the final edits, and as usual in one case the guest says one thing to the contestant in the one-to-ones and then something else entirely when the picture comes up, which is a bit rubbish.
Next week should be amusing.
I think this programme represents my only regret about having to ditch Sky. I used to really enjoy getting riled up about the bit that annoyed me!
How about the bit where one of the photographers was a dancer, and they had to include a dancer in their shots (which they were provided with to escort around), and one of the judges said 'you're a dancer, maybe include yourself as well', and then she did, and they basically called her a narcissist? See, now you don't need to watch it
Well I picked the one to go, but only by second-guessing some of the modish, predictable and cliched judges reactions. Basically the brief really was "Do something outstandingly silly with a dancer". If that's what they were going to applaud, would have been good to clarify it in the brief. You seriously have to judge the judges. But I really did like a couple.
Yeh, they started off saying, "photographers need to be authors", which I can stand behind, and morphed into, "surprise us" which translated to, "photographers need to write comedies" which isn't where they started at all. I'm exaggerating for effect.
Anyway, inspired by the show, I have put together 'a representation of Nottingham, condensed into a single image' and posted it to appraisals.
I await with trepidation.
I do wonder when things we have seen over and over and are simply arbitrary concoctions that have no meaning (eg vomiting something) cease to be "surprising" and make judges go wow? We had someone gratuitously gobbing all over the place last year, to great applause.
It's odd for sure. I liked the venue, the two pictures and the idea of spaghetti, and it's as if he realised they were clichés and decided to hide that behind an even bigger artistic cliché.
Also, the one who decided to do a B&W conversion and then appears to have taken the defaults in Lightroom. grr.
The pictures from the first episode are up.
So for those who've not seen the show, you can still see / comment on the images.
I don't have Sky, and these images don't inspire me to get it... better stuff on the AP website gallery pages.
I liked Monika's. Several are tosh by any standards (except modish modernist ones).
Liked Monika's. Thought Alex's was interesting, and he absolutely had a concept he was trying to deliver, whether it's interesting or not, you kind of feel it at least delivers on his vision. I don't understand the exposure in Paolo's shot at all.
I like the processing on Wayne's shot, and kind of enjoy looking at the image, but it doesn't really deliver on the brief IMO. The rest I could take or leave, except Flint's which is clearly a 'striking' image that wouldn't look out of place in the timeline of some current popular photographers (for good or bad).
So what was the 'actual' brief? Or is RM's interpretation of it all I need to know ;-)
Without having seen the programme, and not being entirely sure what was asked for, I can say that I like Monika's shot which seems to be both joyous and dark all at the same time, and I find myself intriqued by Alex's image. Not sure the rest aren't just rather dull except for the long exposure one which is merely confusing. I could see it working if there was some sense of the 'dance' of the other people in the street but it just looks like they got in the way.
Far as I recall it was to deliver the essence of Naples, but with a ballet dancer in the shot. But as ever, what anyone says it is is far less illuminating than what they mean it is (usually determined after the judging). But the word surprise was used at one point. All I ask about the off the wall ones is "How does it illuminate Naples?". If it has a meaningful point to it fine. If it is gratuitous and without relevance to Naples, then tosh. Working to a brief is entirely different to freestyle.
Separate names with a comma.