Master of Photography

Absolutely disgraceful criticism given to the contestants. The judges do not own the photography world. Just because they don't like something doesn't mean they have the right to speak to people like that.

Atrocious

Great concept, and I love that they show the camera settings for each photograph. BUT, how about a little constructive criticism instead of just berating the creatives. Don't we have enough of that these days. As a photographer you should know better.

I can't believe the comments tonight for the back stage photos. The actors are on stage! You can't get in their faces! Oliviero is so 2-faced. Make the pictures your own, he says. Then he says he thinks they're useless as he doesn't like the image! IT'S NOT YOUR PICTURE. Take a look at your own Benetton pictures, Olivero. They aren't exactly shouting out for aclaim. Simon's photos are also lacing sparkle and character, unlike those of the contestants. Far too pretentious. Talks the talk, but can't walk. The only "judge" with ANY credibility is Rutt. Even the "mentors" are poor. The contestants could benefit from the mentor comments and hints BEFORE heading out. Saying "you should have tried this" or " you should do this" is pointless when the pictures are already taken. Not impressed.

I've just had the opportunity to watch a few episodes, they were from the past couple of years. This series must be new to U.S. television market.

I love hearing the photographer's thinking process on each of the challenges. It gives the viewer insight into the struggles photographers have when on assignment, whether it is a personal project or a paid gig. The struggles are real and creating art is not as easy as most people think. The contestants' explanation of why they took the image and what they saw in the image they took is crucial to the enjoyment of this series.

As for the judging, it is a fail! These photographers are in a competition environment, not submitting images to an editor for a specific publication. There are no set criteria or point scale for the various categories/technical skills required to capture a good artistic image. The judges act more like editors arbitrarily saying whether an image is good enough, and most of the time I disagree with their assessment of an image. The photographers haven't had enough time to understand what each judge is looking for, except for the few who make it to the latter half of the season. At the least, the judges could provide some constructive criticism on how the photographer could have improved the image to make the cut.

They should improve the judging aspect where there is a grade card with specific exoteric (composition, lighting, focus, theme, etc.) objectives to be met and far less esoteric (mood, meaning, story, etc.) objectives. Each judge should independently score each image and the winner based on total points.

Who is to say that these "famous" photographers vision of what is "art" is any more valid than the photographers who took the photo. It reminds me of the artists who criticized the impressionists at the turn of the last century. The vision is in the eye of the photographer, and there can be constructive criticism of the exposure, etc (which would include suggestions on changes to make it better) but these judges are just pompous asses who think their vision is the only way. It would be interesting to see the tables turned, have the contestants criticize the judges work...

Overall as a photographer, I find the assignments interesting, but the whole judging aspect turns me off. Judging should have a element of encouragement and teaching, not the imposition of their very narrow vision of art on to another artists.