Master of Photography Season 3 Starts Tomorrow

Bl4ckGryph0n

I still like the format, I just want them to get a decent presenter and stop repeating the title of the program so often

Faldrax

You'll be suggesting we don't need to see the same stock drone footage of the building each week next...

Bl4ckGryph0n

Yup, that would be good as well

But seriously, whilst I like the judges, it needs a proper presenter. Series after series they’ve been very bad in my opinion. The presenter doesn’t need to be a photographer.

I’d also would like to see the limitation to use Leica removed. I would find it more interesting to see them use their own equipment and usage of that.

Oh and just provide the bags to keep people like Flint happy

snerkler

Yeah I liked this episode too, and strangely said exactly the same thing about the Italian guy's pics. During the show I said that he'd not listened to the brief/advice and did the 'family portrait' yet that was the judges favourite

Federica definitely the strongest over the series. Felt a bit sorry for the English guy this week, Salgado advised him to put the shot of the street in and then the judges slammed it. Overall Salgado came across really well, seemed really nice and offered genuine help. I liked the examples of his work that they showed too, I think I need to look at more of his work. Whilst on this topic, am I the only one on here that hasn't got a Scooby about any famous togs, I'd struggle to name any and have already forgotten the judges from the previous episodes

I did properly laugh when Flint walked out in the cockroach costume, what a guy

BT Bob

Depends what type of photography you like, but I'd suggest the following as a starting point:

Landscape: Ansel Adams is the obvious contender and he made some great images. My personal favourite is John Sexton (he worked as Adams' assistant for years). Colin Prior is also worth checking out - he does regular talks.
Portraiture: Norman Parkinson, Annie Leibowitz, David Hearn, David Bailey, Terry Sullivan, Yousuf Karsh, Chalky Davies.
Documentary: Henri Cartier-Bresson is the obvious choice, but I prefer Brassai's work. I find HCB a little "safe" at times, and Salgado, of course.
Wildlife: Andy Rouse is excellent - gives lots of talks and worth seeking out.

For something a little (well, in some cases, very) different I like (some of) the work of people like Weegee, Joel-Peter Witkin, Sally Mann, Diane Arbus, Robert Mapplethorpe (made some superb still-lifes of flowers and some very challenging homo-erotic work - not for those of a nervous disposition).

IMO you could do worse than look at the work of almost anyone who's worked for Magnum.

One final point - books and the interweb a great but there's no substitute for going to an exhibition of real photos in a gallery.

snerkler

Really good season finale imo, really liked the subject this week, great opportunity for the contestants.

I don't think anyone can argue with the winner, hands down the best overall and the only person that consistently was able to portray emotion and connect with the subjects. I think Wayne made a mistake going black and white, but I did get more of a feel of 'community' from his shots than I did Alex's. Alex seemed to want to be artistic rather than connecting, which I guess is ultimately why Federica won and not him. Looking back through previous weeks his shots on the whole were better than I remembered but again were more artistic, the only one I really felt showed a connection was his family portrait.

BT Bob

@snerkler  Totally agree. Your last point is interesting - especially so in light of previous comments re not following the brief.... "We're not looking for a family group", so Alex shoots a family group and wins because of it. I must admit, I really liked that shot, but it was the thing the judges expressly told them not to do.

snerkler

Yes ironic isn't it that one that didn't follow the brief was the only one (for me) that showed any connection with the subject

Snake79

I've seen all the episodes now and agree on the winner. Week after week consistently a bit better than everyone else, but the quality overall has not been great.

I still don't like the elimination format as I don't think it's a fair representation of what the contestants are capable of. I'd much prefer they pick the best from each assignment and compare at the end of the series to pick the overall winner. That way everyone gets a chance to shoot all genres and you should, in theory, get a better winner, as some grow/get better further in.

It's not really fair if a candid street photographer for example has a landscape challenge and fails on the first week only to have their preferred subject the following week and could potentially blow the rest away but never gets the chance. If anything it rewards mediocrity.

I do find it entertaining but in the real world no photographer who is any good would put themselves in a situation with no preparation for their job, hoping to wing the task. That is unfortunately the situation the series creates.

snerkler

I agree with your thoughts, however this is a TV show competition and as such it must be difficult to come up with a format that is not only fair, but also keeps the intrigue of the viewer. These formats of eliminations have worked for years on various programmes (Master Chef, Bake Off, X-factor etc etc) and I would think that keeping everyone in until the end to give them a fair chance would defeat the point of the format and would probably even get boring. I think it's probably only unfair for the person who leaves on the first week as they could just happen upon a genre that really doesn't suit them. But as the weeks go on there becomes less and less of an excuse as, whilst a tog may have a favoured genres, they should be proficient in a variety of genres. And even on the genre they don't like they should have (imo) enough skill in photography to be able to adapt and be able to apply their technique and style to that subject. I'm not saying that it's the easiest thing to do, but on this series above the others you'd think the way some folk approached a genre they didn't like they'd never used a camera before OK, bit OTT but you get my drift That being said, some contestants clearly didn't have a good understanding of exposure and how a camera works, and some couldn't even shoot straight

I'm not sure it ultimately rewards mediocrity though tbh. Whilst some of the 'consistently average' togs can make it a few weeks further than they should I still think (from memory) that the overall best have made it through to the final each year, even if I've not always agreed with the outright winner.