Monday, November 05, 2007

"The Shot" Misses the Mark

I watched the premier of "The Shot" last night, VH1's new reality show about ten, hopeful, amateur, photographers vying for cash prizes and a "shot" at becoming America's next top fashion photographer.

I'll admit I was predisposed to dislike the show. I'm happy to report the producers didn't let me down.

As you might have already guessed, I was predisposed to dislike "The Shot" because of purely selfish reasons: We're in the process--and I've written about that process here, on the blog--of pitching a show that's a little too similar to VH1's televised account of what it takes to make it as a fashion shooter. (Albeit, our show is about glam shooters and takes a different approach.) But half-way into "The Shot," I realized its producers sailed a very different tack with their show: "The Shot" focuses more on the interactions between the contestants (make that the conflicts and petty squabbles between the contestants) than what it takes--art and craft and what have you--to get "The Shot," fashion or otherwise.

Right from the start, it was obvious "The Shot" wasn't so much about actually snapping "The Shot," i.e., there was very little offered in terms of revealing what it takes to get that shot. Also, to label the contestants "amateurs" wasn't exactly accurate. Most the contestants already possessed some good photography skills and more than a few of them were already "working" photographers. (Although none of them were working fashion photographers.)

There was very little in the show that revealed anything craft-related regarding getting "The Shot." For instance, not one, single contestant, to my recollection, said a word about lighting the model. (We don't need no stinking lighting.) Neither, it seems, did the show's host: fashion shooter Russel James. Yeah, there was plenty said about interacting with the model, especially when the contestants were being chastised by Russel James for their incompetence at it. The fact the contestants couldn't work well together as a team was another source of contention for Mr. James. But I'd like to know how many fashion assignments James has worked where he was expected to do so as a team member (amongst a team of shooters) rather than as an individual shooter? Yeah, team skills are important for photographers, i.e., leading a team of MUAs and stylists and assistants. But this was a team of photographers trying to lead, or be led, as they attempted to shoot a multi-page layout... you see that a lot.

Back to lighting: I didn't see much going on with modifying or controlling light. When the contestants were shooting aboard a luxury sailing vessel, I think I saw one reflector pulled out for one shot and it was a pretty small reflector at that. James complained that some of the shooters were posing the model in direct sunlight but I couldn't help but wonder about how many times James has shot exterior, daylight, magazine layouts without the benefit of scrims, reflectors, silks, lights, whatever.

Nowhere in the show did I notice anyone working with a light meter. (I guess they were all shooting in auto modes.)

There also wasn't any interaction between shooters and MUA's or stylists revealed. One thing the producers did do that probably made "ratings" sense: They hired a busty Victoria's Secret model who went out of her way to show as much cleavage as the show's censors would allow.

My favorite bit from the show was when one of the contestants couldn't figure out how to zoom with a prime lens. (It looked like a Canon 135mm, f/2, "L" prime.) That little bit typified the show's apparent quest to render the photographers ignorant even though James mentioned, more than a few times, that he hand-picked each contestant for, amongst other things, the skills they already possessed.

I'll probably watch the remainder of the show's episodes since there's very little (if anything) on TV that focuses on photography and photography is what I'm mostly about.

In short, I'm smugly happy they missed the mark with this show, at least in my opinon they did. I don't see it going more than one season but what do I know? Network television has a long history of broadcasting crap. I guess I'll have to wait and see.

10 comments:

Johnny B. said...

I agree. I'm not a fan of "reality television" as a whole, but I thought it might spark some creativity in me to watch. I barely made it thru the first commercial break. What a waste of time.
I truly hope your show gets picked up and produced.

Anonymous said...

I know of at least three people in Austin who have been involved in "reality" contest shows. What a scam.

As I understand it, the shows are scripted long before people are selected to compete. Producers MAKE participants conform to the preconceived story lines.

One person I know of recently mentioned that producers routinely sat people down for their "mini-interview sessions"--you know, where they vent to the camera without the rest of the group around--and forced them to retell their comments until the told things in a way that made producers happy.

It's all about creating an entertaining story line to keep people tuned in. The premise to any of these shows is really a non-issue (photographers, models, women looking for love, parents selecting replacement boyfriends/girlfriend for their kids, etc.)

But, a show about a real photographer, working with real lighting, situations, etc. I would watch that! Sure, you can throw in a little crazy drama for extra spice. But, just make sure the premise is solid and real.

Anonymous said...

Your commentary is 'right on the mark' . Team leaders gave no useful direction and then belittled the members of their teams. The judges act like pompous fools. Only good for a laugh.

Anonymous said...

the show made me sad...that's all we get for insperation and instruction? thank god for the internet and the library. can i just fly down from alaska and give you money to teach me?


keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

Good commentary my friend. There is one thing to be said though, there is now an audiance being built to see what us mere photographers are up to. Might not be the best view of us, since you and I work mostly glamour, but it is a start.

Moses

David Griffin said...

I was afraid of that. I purposely didnt watch it cause of 2 reasons. A it would be the worst show on TV or the best show on TV. If they focused on the shooting, the creativity the photography it would be the greatest show on TV (reality TV) but its actually the worst. Trying to make 10 photogaphers fight is just plain sadistic. I quit on reality TV.

David Griffin, The Prince of Cheap of www.Studiolighting.net

joshua said...

Wow, I guess I'm lucky I don't have cable. It usually boils down to the same thing about tv, "I didn't miss much."

-joshua

Ryan said...

Ha I actually sent e-mail to be on the show, thank god they didn't call me. Nothing was said about it being specifically about a "fashion" photographer, thats not really my style anyway. But what is funny is that I went to school with Ivan at Brooks Institute didn't really know him, I know he won some big photo contests while we were in school. It sucks they try to make a show all about drama rather then the true art of photography. Your show sounds like the real deal. Good Luck....hope to see it soon I think you have a great chance with the writers on strike.
Ryan

Anonymous said...

i really didn't like how in the preview for next week Russell James says to one of the girls that the lighting is already set just snap a picture....How are they getting 'the Shot' without controlling their own lighting or being creative? From the first show and the previews for the second one there seems to be nothing about photography in this "photography" show...what a shame.

WillT said...

For those who missed the show, there's a preview here.