Sky Arts Master of Photography TV prog

Well not that impressed with last nights and grumpy judge is just boring now, predictably embodied.
 
I think it's a total waste of time.
It's all completely false, from the ridiculous way the contestants clap the judges' arrival, to the totally subjective views of the judges.
What is the grumpy old man about?
 
I don't it'll get renewed for a second season unless there are some changes to the way the show is produced and judged. It's a shame really as it has a hell of a lot of potential given how little there is on the television for such a hobbie/subject.
 
Whilst a lot of it is obviously staged (it's a TV programme after all) at the risk of offending some people on here, I suspect that you've never had a professional portfolio assessment.

Compared to what they could be saying and considering that they are trying to produce one of the best young photographers in Europe, it could be said that they are being rather fluffy!
 
Lol, I don't think I'd survive one :)

Fingers crossed for next week, landscape in Ireland had potential.

I do hope it get renewed despite my whinging
 
I don't think I understood the brief either. The judges just kept on saying the contestants didn't get it but they failed to explain what they meant by a 'story'. A story in 3 images is very difficult and I kept on saying to myself "explain what you mean". I would have been exasperated if I was taking part cos I think it was nigh on impossible to understand. I just hope they had more info than we the viewer got.
 
I'll
most llikely watch this to it's conclusion, but wouldn't bother again. Go Rupert!
 
I'm quite enjoying the show, its enlightening for so many ways. Loved Ruperts symmetrical shots of the stage. The photos of the dancers stretching in the dressing room I was shouting 'Move the bin from the background...'
A difficult brief and venues
 
Have to agree with nearly everything said on here, but i have to admit i have enjoyed the show and remember guys this show is not just for photographers but for people to be entertained, so i am guessing the format has worked on other shows so they played safe with this format. I am also picking up one or two pointers from it which help (i think).
 
Interesting to read the reactions to this rare TV photographic oriantated show. Despite the obvious entertainment biased drawbacks, isn't it great to showcase photography? Something that highlights the real effort needed to produce even half-good pictures? When most people think or dismiss photography as something anyone can do well and with ease, using a camera phone and Instagram, this can only be a 'good thing'.

And thank goodness the judges are grumpy and scathing. You tend to sit up and take notice of a harsh crit and do something about it. When the going gets tough and all that jazz. As for dismissing some of the judges as being 'up their own arse' as some here have, really, come on. These are people who, like it or not, are very successful in their own genres. If you want to grow your understanding of photography, its wise to take respectful note.

My grumpy complaint is that there isn't enough banter and character from either the judges or the contestants. The judges should be arguing between themselves over the shots and the contestants stronger in supporting their images. Photography is subjective and one man's meat is another man's poison. It's a bit too po-faced in this regard. Well, a LOT po-faced to be honest.There's no passion. It would make better telly, too.
 
I would struggle with the equipment, having never used Leica gear before.
Especially how to fit the lens hood the right way round !
 
Ros said:
I've been watching the show - enjoying it some of the time and being frustrated at others.

Anyway, did a quick search to find out what equipment they were using and came across this blog with some of the contestants being interviewed:
http://blog.leica-camera.com/2016/07/21/master-of-photography/
Click to expand...

Looking ahead, how do you think Master of Photography will contribute to your photographic career?

Rupert Frere: It’s hard to say, I hope people will like my work and pay me millions of pounds to photograph stuff.

:D
 
Watched the last one yesterday and I was as unimpressed as the judges.

None of the contestants had the confidence to properly meet the brief. That was a real disappointment; with only 2 hrs you really have to take control. though I did feel sorry for the pair who drew the short straw timing wise and got the time of the performance particularly in a production that couldn't really afford to have them hanging around.
 
I've been recording them and have only watched the first three so far.
I like Laura Zalenga, the short haired girl that gets herself into all her images (so far)
I also like Neal Gruer, the cat with the hat but on the last assignment (The body) I do think he tried a little too hard.

I've no complaints about the show, I like it. I like the sometimes brutal criticism, some shots I look at and think wow but then they get slated by the Judges. It just goes to show how subjective art is (or how little I know)
 
The more episodes you watch, the more you will come to realise just how good your own photography really is..........
 
Been enjoying the show to an extent; just wish their was more time given to the critique and processing elements as this always seems to be rushed through. Also what's with the pointless clapping introduction and showing a few random shots 'for inspiration' - cut that out and give us a few more minutes of the competitors actually doing their stuff.
 
Graham Serretta said:
The more episodes you watch, the more you will come to realise just how good your own photography really is..........
Click to expand...
Hum, I'm not sure.
There's been some excellent images and some good ideas poorly realised, but that's more likely down to the timescales and limitations places on the photographers.
 
Byker28i said:
Hum, I'm not sure.
There's been some excellent images and some good ideas poorly realised, but that's more likely down to the timescales and limitations places on the photographers.
Click to expand...

I agree.
It's easy for us to sit back and think "I could do better than that" but until such times as we are put under the pressure we would never know.
 
StewC said:
Been enjoying the show to an extent; just wish their was more time given to the critique and processing elements as this always seems to be rushed through. Also what's with the pointless clapping introduction and showing a few random shots 'for inspiration' - cut that out and give us a few more minutes of the competitors actually doing their stuff.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that - One of the inspiration shots this week was apparently a "photoshop" job from 1880 - fine for an idea, but then given 2 hours to shoot and 15 minutes to process i'm not sure how inspiring that would be!

I too would like to hear more of the critique and see the photographers defend their concepts (and not be told "better not speak") and when you have 10 people who don't understand the brief, I would argue the problem is not with them, but with those explaining it!
 
Last edited:
The show is more enjoyable than I thought it would be. Instead of permanent anger, it's only mildly irritating.

There does seem to be a lack of proper instruction or guidance for the tasks, and their expectations of results for 20 minute or 2 hour shoots are quite unrealistic. Especially when they show them "inspirational" images that will have been carefully selected from people who work on long-term projects.

Also thought that the Madsen setup was weird - they had to set up a set/location before they even met him. How are they meant to get a revealing portrait of someone's personality when they're forced into an idea before they understand the person?
 
GlennW said:
The show is more enjoyable than I thought it would be. Instead of permanent anger, it's only mildly irritating.

There does seem to be a lack of proper instruction or guidance for the tasks, and their expectations of results for 20 minute or 2 hour shoots are quite unrealistic. Especially when they show them "inspirational" images that will have been carefully selected from people who work on long-term projects.

Also thought that the Madsen setup was weird - they had to set up a set/location before they even met him. How are they meant to get a revealing portrait of someone's personality when they're forced into an idea before they understand the person?
Click to expand...
They had time to research him, and that showed in the results too. Only 1 contestant chose to just go with what they wanted to do with no care for the sitter, and he went home.
 
Phil V said:
They had time to research him, and that showed in the results too. Only 1 contestant chose to just go with what they wanted to do with no care for the sitter, and he went home.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point, I forgot about the research time. Not a portrait man myself, but I would definitely want to meet who I was working with first, if only just to get an inkling of what kind of mood they were in as that could have a big bearing on the outcome.
 
GlennW said:
That's a fair point, I forgot about the research time. Not a portrait man myself, but I would definitely want to meet who I was working with first, if only just to get an inkling of what kind of mood they were in as that could have a big bearing on the outcome.
Click to expand...
That's all easily done in the sitting time.

In fact it's obvious from the results, that was the best set of images so far in the series. OTOH the time constraint for that one was to not make life too stressful for the sitter.

Whereas often the time constraints are based on the production. I'm sure that in last weeks episode all the shoots happened the same day with a single film crew, it's the only explanation for one pair having to shoot backstage during a performance.
 
Episode 2, Bruce Gilden said something like "that is why you are where you are and I am where I am" conceited arse

Italian judge is for want of a better expression a d******d

Presenter is a waste of space

need to catch up on the backstage episode but the portraits from 4 by far the best so far

And it must have cost Leica a small fortune and I bet their sales do not rise on the back of it

Thank god for catch up as then I only have to fast forward through 45 minutes and not 60
 
I just had a thought about this programme and was wondering about the impact this would have on the 'careers' of the contestants post programme.
I know some are professionals and will no doubt continue as they were prior to going onto the show but the amateurs I'd be very interested to see how they fair.
Countless threads on TP have been devoted to the discussion of credit and giving ones work away for free with some promised return of 'exposure'. There's a comparison to be made here.
The amateur (and professional) contestants who were voted out on the early rounds still received a great deal of exposure simply by being on a Sky TV show, surely this surpasses any footnote credit or byline on ones photographs that you were promised credit for.

I would imagine Sky have something in the pipeline for the winner and possibly the runner up as a revisit sometime in the future but for everyone else?

I dont suppose we will ever know unless one/some of the photographers burst onto the scene with the byline "Of Sky Master of Photography fame!!"
I think i will have to go on wondering..........
 
Arghh, so frustrating. Both girls submitted the wrong image. Why didn't Laura use that image of her in a ball against the black rocks. That's was stunning. Ruperts winning image was brilliant, but then so was the black and white under the bridge arch.
 
Donovan Wylie, photography of the military watchtowers springs to mind.
Human interaction with the landscape.
 
go Rupert! What surprises me though was, whilst I thought his final image was very good, why did it need cropping in post when I believe he use a zoom?
 
Gyles said:
go Rupert! What surprises me though was, whilst I thought his final image was very good, why did it need cropping in post when I believe he use a zoom?
Click to expand...

Maybe he was at the zoom's limit when he took the shot, or just preferred the tighter framing when he got back to the computer.

The judges are annoying - as far as I could see, none of the images (other than Neal's losing shot) showed any cultural impact. Every other shot could have been taken in a variety of places around the globe - Neal's was the only shot with any sign of human life (other than the photographers putting themselves in shot, and a tiny bit of fence in Gabriel's image), so it's difficult to understand how any of them added any 'cultural' feel to their photographs. I agree that Neal's shot was a fairly standard take, and I'm not surprised it lost him the round, but given the vague and subjective nature of the brief, it must be difficult and frustrating to get an idea of what is needed to please judges who seem to have a clear idea of what they want to see, but no ability to communicate what that is. Yan's shot of the mountainous valley was nice (and I preferred it to Neal's coastal scene), but it was still a fairly traditional landscape shot, just made more moody by the B&W conversion (with some noticeable halo-ing along the mountaintop).

Also, did Rut Blees Luxemburg really not know what a sheep was? :D
 
Gyles said:
go Rupert! What surprises me though was, whilst I thought his final image was very good, why did it need cropping in post when I believe he use a zoom?
Click to expand...
Safer to capture more than you need and crop until it's right rather than wishing you had a little more later down the line.
Rather emotional this week! Grumpy old man didn't know what to say when presented with emotion. Been after it for weeks and when he gets it there's not s word!
 
I'm enjoying it, it's good to see photography making it to mainstream TV and getting people, hopefully, into their first steps into the art of photography. A few things bother me though. I find the images some weeks so so and to think these were the cream of the crop of the many thousands who applied. I'm no expert myself before anyone says anything and I get that they're under pressure to get the shot but these are the best of a whole heap of entrants so should be able to deliver. The week with the celebrity portrait was good, I enjoyed many of their images. This week it was landscapes and from the images I was seeing coming up on the screens there were, in my eyes, some right howlers! clipped skies, under exposed land where the camera has read for the sky, lack of focus ..... But then they say it's art and it has feeling! So are we all doing it wrong as my idea of a landscape is something different! A few images they posted up were more detail shots than landscapes ??

Grumpy judge said Yan's image was just a postcard shot but that reminded me a lot of the work of Ansel Adams who is a landscape legend?!

I also find they are given an assignment and then when it comes to judging they change the goal posts! Like this week, go out and shoot a landscape ....... Guest judge says "it's a landscape, you should interpret a landscape and not just shoot one", then the judges say they are looking at emotions in the scene and the balance of humans in the landscape? WHAT!!

Also Rupert's shot, I really liked that image, it was lovely in my eyes but then they called it romantic? I didn't get that comment?
 
I do like the program but it is relying in my mind anyway too much on an individual's opinion rather than the technicalities/details of the picture it's self. If you take the likes of Master Chef etc it has a more black and white sort of concept, either something tastes good or it doesn't, how it looks on the plate etc. Master Of Photography seems to be all about artistic opinion of the individual judges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top