Reality TV photography competition on Channel 4

[Paul Russell]

So if there is so much good stuff on flickr, why did they pick these average photographers then?

Dunno.

But to enter you would had to able to take just about the whole of August off, I think, which would rule out a lot of people who might have entered.

 

[e19896]

So if there is so much good stuff on flickr, why did they pick these average photographers then?

is there? come on 5 mega pixall mobile phones, the standerd of point n shoot has gone up and all i see on flickr is avarge.. includeing my own work, to some less or grate extent, here is a tool we could use to our advantage, from the internet and self publication, to takeing images, we are not useing the media we are given, and if i had known i would have made an effort to take time out and do such a project, myself is hungry not for fame or anything like that. but to learn understand the media i have the freedom to use.. here we are an opertunity to diy ourselfs like indymedia and here, and we end up with this bullshit and no wonder martin is asking wtf i would be doing much the same, less than avarage but fucking shit haveing given it more thought.. rant over..

 

[zenie]

I've seen some really good stuff on FlickR

 

[Robster970]

I kind of assumed that there would be better work on flickr enumbers - i don't tend to spend any time on there so don't claim to be an authority on it's general level of quality. this is really the only forum I hang out in tbh and I'm happy here.

 

[e19896]

I've seen some really good stuff on FlickR

Yes there can be so why do we end up with this load of shit?

I kind of assumed that there would be better work on flickr enumbers - i don't tend to spend any time on there so don't claim to be an authority on it's general level of quality. this is really the only forum I hang out in tbh and I'm happy here.

There is and i only use it as a tool to be frank, and one is more happy here because people say it how it is and not offer you bullshit (sometimes) example is jan,s photo comp and your image you raised the challange and that is what we need a challange and not letting ourselfs think we have the tools so let them do the work, we have to also think and do some of the work for ourselfs and if i had been given such an oppertunaty i would work my backside off to win, what a good fortune these people have and there pissing it in the wind and one of them has a ba in this game?

 

[Robster970]

Ultimately I agree with you about these people having an opportunity to 'make it' in photography and then stuffing it up - it does seem a shame. Maybe the programme makers and judges know something we don't.

As far as this little forum is concerned, it's pretty self regulating as ultimately we all decide to use it. We all had a moan about the comp and not suprisingly this month seems to have struck a chord with us all, not just me. It's why I like the place - it's pretty normal and not artificial.

You've also got to bear in mind and this was born out by Pie's departing words is that there is a fair smattering of talent on here considering how few there are of us. Hence we probably have an average higher quality than flickr and we get a bit confused when mediocrity is presented to us as the norm, as is the case with this X-factor for photography.

 

[Paul Russell]

I kind of assumed that there would be better work on flickr enumbers - i don't tend to spend any time on there so don't claim to be an authority on it's general level of quality. this is really the only forum I hang out in tbh and I'm happy here.

Well, at least 95% of it is just snaps, party pictures, relatives. Nothing wrong with that, but it's stuff you previously would just stick in a shoe box, now people are sort of backing up their life on Flickr.

There are some very good photographers on Flickr as well of course, but it's only a tiny percentage of users that take photography "seriously".

Still, surprised they ended up with that lot on the TV - maybe some good photographers didn't pass the auditions cos they wouldn't make good telly...

 

[Robster970]

I wonder whether Parr will eventually regret taking part in this if it is really about good tv rather than good photography

 

[big eejit]

I wonder whether Parr will eventually regret taking part in this if it is really about good tv rather than good photography

Can't blame him for cashing in on the photography boom, but probably wishing he'd got more assurances about the quality!

 

[boskysquelch]

Can't blame him for cashing in on the photography boom, but probably wishing he'd got more assurances about the quality!

Parr was pro when I was still at school in 81.. I worked with him in 82.

 

[zenie]

maybe some good photographers didn't pass the auditions cos they wouldn't make good telly...

maybe ey??

 

[Robster970]

@Paul - clear your box, so to speak.......

 

[Paul Russell]

@Paul - clear your box, so to speak.......

Done.

I've seen bits and bobs about the "reality" aspects of the programme on t Interweb including the Flickr discussion boards (and hi Dan).

The contestants got about an hour for each assignment, and the chap who was booted out was moaning that the bit where they had to photograph each other they only got 20 minutes.

 

[zenie]

Isn't 20 minutes long enough to take a photo of someone?

 

[dansumption]

Hi Paul!

Yes, I spoke to somebody who was on the programme and he said that they got an hour for each task, but they couldn't use the whole hour because for a lot of it the TV crew were setting up their own shots. For the first task, the hour was split between the two people who were photographing each other, so in theory they got 30 minutes each, but in reality more like 20 minutes. I think the setup on the Germaine Greer shoot was similar (which rather undermines Parr's claim that they got an hour-and-a-half each). I don't think I could have worked under those conditions.

It does make me wonder why Carolyn was spending so much time messing about with the teddy bear, if she only had 20 minutes. I think I would have just taken close-up face shots, although that's not normally my "thing".

I also learnt that they could choose to use either their own equipment or Nikon D80s. I guess most went with their own kit, given the preponderance of Canon straps and lenses I spotted, but this could explain why Carolyn complained that she couldn't work out how to get the exposure right when she was on Brighton beach. Cruel experience has taught me that, when you have just 20 minutes to get "that" photo, better the devil you know than some theoretically better piece of kit.

Some more info about why they may have got the contestants they did: I applied myself, but the procedure was pretty torturous. They only got the application forms online about a couple of weeks before submissions closed, and even then it didn't work with Firefox (they promised to fix this but never did, so I had to email in my photos in the end). Part of the submission was a rather personal longwinded and form, obviously designed to provided a detailed psychological profile so that the programme makers could choose a mix of people who might perhaps spark off some Big Brother-style breakdowns.

And, yes, you had to commit to devoting an entire month to the show.

Anyway, they confirmed receipt of my application, and that's as far as I got. I'm obviously not good reality TV fodder.

 

[Robster970]

Anyway, they confirmed receipt of my application, and that's as far as I got. I'm obviously not good reality TV fodder.

Dan - I rest my case. Once again mediocrity triumphs in the war to make TV production as cheap as possible.

 

[dansumption]

What is it with these people and the self-portraits on the link given in Paul's OP? Do not understand this. Is it merely egocentric or is it social paranoia driving them to turn the camera on the subject least likely to sue?

This is something I notice a lot of recently, it seems to be getting more and more prevalent. I think a lot of it has to do with the amount of "positive" feedback young women can get by posting photos of themelves on the Internet (plenty of this on Flickr), and it's part of a larger trend (which I think is related to "Affluenza" and other mental disorders associated with Western capitalism) whereby young women are increasingly unable to find confidence from within themselves, so they find it by showing off their bodies, behaving flirtatiously, etc.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

I conclude from all of the above discussion, and with little surprise, that the whole thing is about television and that photography is just the current theme. It is Big Brother with digital cameras. Of course the important aspect is the character of the participants and their interaction in a competitive environment.

I suppose it is a change from all the cookery competitions that have been running, where similarly the food is just the excuse while people are judged.

The dancing competitions that have been on our screens for so long at least provide a spectacle with movement and the subject is the participants in motion. With photography the images are separate from the people and static so not as potentially interesting visually on a television screen which is best at catching movement and change.

Perhaps they should set up a competition where the participants made a video. This would integrate better into the format of the programme itself. The prize could be a job /traineeship at the television company.

 

[Robster970]

Perhaps they should set up a competition where the participants made a video. This would integrate better into the format of the programme itself. The prize could be a job /traineeship at the television company.

Alternatively wannabe tv people can pit their wits in coming up with the next generation of reality tv shows. The winner then get's their programme aired thus allowing viewers to watch the programme they make too. Kill two birds with one stone. Two programmes for one budget. Genius.

edited to remove piss poor english

 

[Paul Russell]

Some more info about why they may have got the contestants they did: I applied myself, but the procedure was pretty torturous. They only got the application forms online about a couple of weeks before submissions closed, and even then it didn't work with Firefox (they promised to fix this but never did, so I had to email in my photos in the end). Part of the submission was a rather personal longwinded and form, obviously designed to provided a detailed psychological profile so that the programme makers could choose a mix of people who might perhaps spark off some Big Brother-style breakdowns.

Thanks for all that Dan.

BTW, one of the many things that put me off applying, as well being totally un-telegenic and not able to take a month off, is that I assumed that there would be quite a few studio shoots, and I wouldn't have a clue how to do that and would probably pass out with embarrassment. But several of them seemed similarly clueless.

 

[zenie]

Also the girl who was a photography graduate didn't now how to use a MF camera? Seems odd....

Are their shots on the website before I trawl to look at them again?

 

[dansumption]

BTW, one of the many things that put me off applying, as well being totally un-telegenic and not able to take a month off, is that I assumed that there would be quite a few studio shoots, and I wouldn't have a clue how to do that and would probably pass out with embarrassment. But several of them seemed similarly clueless.

I'm with you there Paul - in fact watching Aaron sweat and shake, as he got his ironing board ready for Germaine Greer, I felt a strong sense of deja vu...

 

[dansumption]

Also the girl who was a photography graduate didn't now how to use a MF camera? Seems odd....

Yes, I think she did.

I was looking at her portfolio site the other day. Says she took Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe publicity photographs. Now that I'm jealous of.

 

[Paul Russell]

I'm with you there Paul - in fact watching Aaron sweat and shake, as he got his ironing board ready for Germaine Greer, I felt a strong sense of deja vu...

But at least he got to crowbar in one of his wacky slogans.


I wonder if Germaine Greer liked the result -- it wasn't exactly flattering...

 

[zenie]

Yes, I think she did.

I was looking at her portfolio site the other day. Says she took Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe publicity photographs. Now that I'm jealous of.

aaah did she? ok!

What's her site (if you know)

 

[dansumption]

What's her site (if you know)

http://www.lucindachua.co.uk/

 

[Firky]

Reading this I get the feeling this is more centred on the people rather than photography. TV for the dumb watching the idiotic.

 

[Firky]

Says she took Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe publicity photographs. Now that I'm jealous of.

Why

 

[dansumption]

Why

Because TV Go Home was the best thing ever to come out of the Internet.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

...whereby young women are increasingly unable to find confidence from within themselves, so they find it by showing off their bodies, behaving flirtatiously, etc.

What about all the pretty young men posting on photo forums? One of the best things about the digital explosion in photography is that it has broken so many barriers. What was once an old school profession protected by a male dominated elite is now a very open free for all. Photography forums reflect this. Those that carry portrait tags reflect a very even mix of ugly blokes, pretty girls, pretty boys, unflattering women and total piss-takers. Some are hilarious. Good looks always sell and win votes, but on photography forums today the pretty guys are just as likely to use their looks as the pretty girls.

Most of the forums I visit reflect a very even balance. Digital technologies continue to even the playing field in many ways.

Then again, the British Journal of Photography web forum remains a backward dinosaur of bigoted crap. Some things will never change.


Nothing to say about the programme as I haven't watched it. Seems I'm not missing anything of any relevance to photography or, photographers.