1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

New photography programme coming

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Geren, May 15, 2021.

  1. AndyTake2

    AndyTake2 Well-Known Member

    One of the biggest issues there is that when it comes on some TV channels, it is still broadcast in 5.1 sound, which is utterly garbage unless one has an appropriate system. Voices muted, explosions that sound like a real one happening next door:eek:
     
    Zou likes this.
  2. SXH

    SXH Well-Known Member

    Or they were watching and, being a non-photographer, one old-fashioned looking camera was assumed to be as old as the other?

    Another example would be an episode of Be Cool, Scooby-Doo called Screama Donna in which nearly all of the guitars (it is based around a rock concert) are actually good representations of real-world guitars - only a guitar freak would realise that, your average cartoon fan wouldn't.

    I think what I am saying, as she did, is that the programme may have appealed to a smaller, less general audience.
     
  3. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    That’s as may be but this thread is discussing a BBC TV program.
     
  4. RobertCoombes

    RobertCoombes Well-Known Member

    Anyone who understands the technicalities of photography would have been exasperated. The series then failed on both counts failing to engage both the knows and the don't knows.
     
  5. dangie

    dangie Senior Knobhead

    If the BEEB had made the programme for those who understand the technicalities of photography it would have had an extremely low viewing figure. It had to be made for the masses. Of course understanding the technicalities help in getting the result you want and not what the camera wants. Having said that, most cameras, including Smart Phones, have Scene Modes which allow the casual user to obtain excellent results without actually knowing what the camera is doing.
     
  6. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    It went out on BBC Four. So not for the masses. I think it was the first time I ever looked at BBC Four, or any number higher than Two, presumably there is also a Three.
     
  7. dangie

    dangie Senior Knobhead

    Just because it’s on BBC4 doesn’t mean it’s not for the masses. The masses could have watched if they’d wanted to. I’m guessing all televisions have BBC4.
     
  8. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    It's on Freeview, Freesat, Sky and Virgin...iPlayer...
     
  9. Jeff Lee

    Jeff Lee Member

    As I understood it, the series wasn't about technicalities, it was about personal 'journeys'. I got the impression that the Beeb was aiming at a broader audience than photography enthusiasts. But who exactly is that? In covering 3 assignments and 6 photographers in under an hour, there was a variety of personal journeys but they lacked any depth (by necessity). The results leaned towards the wishy-washy. Perhaps this general approach is what happens in the competition for audiences in a channel multiverse? I wonder how many passerby viewers will take up phototgraphy after watching this series? Or will we now have a photography version of Sewing Bee/Bake Off? Keep an eye out for bunting.
     
  10. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    I agree with most of this, but my non-photographer wife was fascinated by it. If it fails to interest people, probably most likely because they saw what it was and didn't bother to watch. Most of the photography looked decent, or better to me, and the emphasis on encouragement and appreciation, rather than destructive criticism was refreshing. Where it left me cold was the lapses into pretentious language and one-upmanship between the mentors trying to out-do eachother with flowery praise - "we can see who you are" and "we've found a new voice" and all that claptrap, which I especially couldn't relate to the work of the two winners. No objection to them winning, but new Man Rays they certainly were not.
    But I think if we ask for more to please ourselves, no-one will ever be able to justify producing it. It won't get audience support.
     
    zx9r and WillieJ like this.
  11. zx9r

    zx9r Well-Known Member

    I have been thinking more about the inclusion of large format and the way the landscape photographer worked with his wooden 10x8 (?) camera. He told them that he would set up the camera, compose the image and make only one exposure for any photograph that he wanted to make, he even repeated Egglestone saying 'I only ever take one picture of everything, never two'. The students were then allowed to select a view to make their one photograph for that assignment.
    I think that the assignment introduced many if not all six of them to an age when you could not just shoot many and select in the edit, an age of precision and one off commitment. You could see that despite not setting up the camera them selves some of them had a real trepidation as they stood with the cable release waiting to capture their photograph.
    In reality you could spend the entire three programs teaching a beginner how to use a mono rail, control of distortion, placing the plane of sharp focus, exposure calculations, and that is ignoring processing the sheet of film and printing the negative in a dark room.
    I think it was a valuable introduction to a different way of making images, perhaps non of them will go near large format again, perhaps one of them will and perhaps the similar could have been achieved by giving them a Fuji GW690 and just one roll of film for the street exercise but it would not have been so effective.
     
  12. Paul M

    Paul M Well-Known Member

    Watched all four episodes yesterday - Left me wondering why visual arts transfer so poorly to a visual medium when baking which relies on smell/taste do so successfully? My conclusion was that there is never a correct outcome in art whilst in baking you either get a correctly baked loaf of bread or you don't - it's not subjective.
    I liked the constructive judging and no-one leaving meant the breadth of content wasn't reduced over the series. The challenges seems to chosen to show that having your camera on P and not knowing what it is doing could result in a one off great picture but if you know how it works then you will get consistent results. Glad it didn't get bogged down in to much technical stuff - really enjoyed the studio assignments and thought these were the best part of each episode. IMO would have been interesting if they had been sent back to Brighton and set the beach challenge again at the end to see what images they produced after all that mentoring.
    Noted the comments above about exposure meters, with digital cameras now having built-in histograms and the 'blinkies' are they now a bit redundant in the studio? And looking at the large format challenge if they really were replicating the 1890's were they actually exposure meters available then or ISO marked film stock? Or was all about guesswork and experimentation, 'sunny 16ths' and all that...
     
  13. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I don’t know off the top of my head, I’d guess it was probably by experience. ISO is a link between exposure and development time and I suppose in those days the whole process was under control of the photographer. Plus the printing where exposure/development errors could be accounted for. Also where the film stock is very slow and exposure time is minutes rather than fractions of a second it must have been harder to go several stops wrong than it is at 1/125 s.
     
    Paul M likes this.
  14. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Well this one especially, but I think the Sky Arts Portrait and Landscape Artist competitions have been a great success and translate to the medium very well. Also are just as subjective as photography, as in reality, are baking and cookery. I like well done, some like rare.
     
  15. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Well-Known Member

    They didn't use exposure meters in the 1890's as serious photographers coated their own wet plates & wouldn't have consistent results batch to batch.
    Kodak had introduced their first cameras just before this time (the box 1 was 1887 IIRC) but these usually only have one aperture & one shutter speed - any exposure control being done in the developing stage by Kodak.
    There was no such thing as film ISO ratings back then so even sunny 16 wouldn't work - ASA ratings were introduced in 1943 & the DIN rating in 1934 the two were combined into ISO in 1974.

    Checking Wikipedia it seems the first speed rating systems for film where introduced in the 1880s. With Warnerke developing a system in 1881, followed by Hurter & Driffield (1890) then Scheiner (1894)

    You have to have a huge degree of respect for the early photographers who managed good results rom such basic equipment.
     
    Paul M and zx9r like this.
  16. zx9r

    zx9r Well-Known Member

    Large format is still in use today and was a big part of commercial photography until well into this millennia so I don't see how they were replicating the 1890's but as you ask, the speed of pre coated plates and cut film would have been known and exposure calculators were available at that time.
    FWIW Sunny f/16 still works and will continue to work for a few billion years as it depends only on the intensity of and our distance from the sun, it even works on the moon or when photographing other objects illuminated by our sun.
     
  17. Geren

    Geren Well-Known Member

    I think visual art can work perfectly well on TV but it simply didn't particularly in this case. Grayson's Art Club was a pleasure to watch. As RM says above the Sky Arts portrait and landscape programmes were great.

    One of the issues I had with this programme is that it asserted that they were looking for the 'next voice in photography' (Or British photography or some such nonsense.) I don't see how the next great voice in photography can be someone who doesn't yet know what the heck they are doing. Nobody would have won bake-off without some understanding of how an oven works. If this group were to accept a commission for a studio shot next week, what we saw would suggest that they'd fail because none of them had to set up the studio. We didn't see anyone working up a custom white balance or balancing output/distance of flash heads or choosing different modifiers. Or considering depth of field. In a way, the fact that they weren't using their phones for the studio shots was neither here nor there - they may as well have been because all the elements of control that the photographer could choose to tweak had already been done for them. Same with the large format camera as far as we could tell.

    There were things I did like.

    I liked the fact that people weren't voted off each week.
    I actually liked the fact that they had phone challenges because then it becomes about the skill of seeing a picture.
    I liked that they had 'real' assignments where they had to interact with their subjects and get the best images out of them.
    I liked that theyhad to consider how to tell a story.
    I liked that they got to use a large format camera in some shape or form.


    The programme was not intended to teach the viewer how to be a better photographer - it was entertainment first and foremost, not education. So really it was aimed at phone photographers. Or those who never come of auto. And that's fine. But let's lose hype about ' next great voice'. I don't think you get to be that unless you actually have something to say and have the means to say it.
     
  18. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    I am sorry but I gave up after the first two shows.
    It was not aimed at photographers.
    Mostly their photographic technical skills were at a very low level or entirely absent.
    And their visual and people skills were not much better.

    However I can understand how viewers could find it entertaining. In a fictional sort of way.
    But it was a very poor representation of photography and photographers.
     
    zx9r likes this.

Share This Page