Chicago Dog
Well-known member
Now that the first round of the B-Roll.net Awards is over, I thought I'd start a discussion about the stories that didn't make it to Round 2.
To those who were eliminated: as I said in another thread, hats off to you. You may not have made it into the next round, but there's something to be said about a willingness to put yourselves "out there." Personally, I felt very reassured about the state of photojournalism when Kev announced there were over 400 entries into the contest. Striving to improve our profession is something that keeps it from dying. Kudos!
To those who critiqued others: first and foremost: this is a learning experience. Entrants that didn't make it to Round 2 are probably wondering why. We're all pretty thick-skinned, but that doesn't mean the limits need to be tested. In a nutshell: keep the criticism constructive.
Finally, this is not an NPPA contest, but folks might have an opinion or preference about something they learned from the NPPA. Deal with it! I don't want to see such a great opportunity descend into a thread filled with bashing and acronym overuse. Most importantly, this is our opportunity to right whatever wrongs we've complained about. With the emergence of this contest, the time for talk has come to an end.
That said, I'll kick it off:
Effort - Most of the packages that I judged showed effort in one form or another. I could tell that a lot of stories were shot by photogs who were striving to create their own shooting style. Some of their attempts worked, others did not. Trial-and-error leads a photog to their own established style, nothing else. A good shooter isn't "born" with the ability to shoot great stories; they learn and make mistakes just like everyone else. Some might make fewer mistakes than others. In the long run, though, that doesn't mean a whole lot.
I'll preface the rest of this general critique with this: I don't really like thinking of our creativity as being defined by "rules." Having a set of rules inhibits your ability to try working in a different way. There's no reason to constantly refer to a set of your tricks as "rules," and that's because you so often want the opportunity to work outside of them.
Rules create needless barriers. Barriers can potentially keep a newbie photog boxed in, worried about trying something new in fear of breaking some stupid rule.
The Overall Sequence - I like stories that have a beginning, middle, and end. Albeit, some stories (breaking news, for example) might not have a chance to use that idea. However, you are assembling a story. Like any story, it should have all the right components.
A few stories didn't have any real direction. I think there's a few issues that reach the root of this problem. First, communication between you and your reporter. It never hurts to suggest how the story should be put together. You're part of a team, not just the guy who totes around thousands of dollars worth of equipment. When the teammates talk to each other, a lot more can get done -- and in a more interesting way.
Your cohort might appreciate the fact that you're thinking like you are. It's easy for anyone to get bogged down by facts; be the anchor that helps keep the ship in the here-and-now. You're a visual storyteller, not a scrapbooker for random images.
Nat Sound - it brings a story to life. Nats doesn't have to be just a chainsaw, opening door, click of the mouse, or punch of the keyboard. Nats can come from a guy you mic'd up and followed around for your story.
Nat breaks are great little tricks used to break up the monotony of a long sound bite. You don't need to break up every long sound bite you come across; some are left better to breathe on their own.
However, in the contest, I noticed a number of missed nat sound opportunities. I expected to hear some great, quick clips in natural pauses in tracks. Unfortunately, a lot of great opportunities were ruined by the reporter's track. Look for nat opportunities in everything you shoot! Snapping the viewer's attention back to the story every once in a while is a great way to keep them from getting sucked in by a monotonous reporter track.
Pacing - It's tricky. You don't want to constantly shutter through ten images in a few seconds during a sad story or some sort of memoir. Likewise, you don't want to leave one stagnant shot up for ten seconds during a story with lots and lots of action. Many stories you'll edit will have a "rhythmic" feel and flow to them.
That said, a few stories I watched felt natural. Some did not. One of the problems I noticed was indecisiveness. Sure, you've got a lot of great shots, but that doesn't mean you need to cram them all into a two-minute piece. Let the beautiful shots breathe. Use your less-favorite shots in the quick pops and sequences. You like them, but you don't care for them as much as your favorite shots, so why should you give the viewer more time to watch the mundane? Stay away from cramming just to fit everything you love into your story.
Hell, your unused shots might make sense in a later package. Remember how you snagged that shot, remember what could've made it just a little better, and toss it into your bag of tricks. There you have it: trial-and-error at work.
Finally (for this installment, at least), Reporter Stand-Ups - it was probably my biggest complaint. The category itself had some very worthwhile stand-ups, but 95% of the stories I watched had stand-ups that just didn't add a damn thing. In fact, I would've rather seen what the reporter was talking about instead of watching the reporter walk around and gesture.
True, we don't have a lot of control over a reporter that insists on putting themselves in the story. However, we do have a great deal of control over what the stand-up looks like. Keep the reporter involved! If they want to rattle off a bunch of facts, ask them why. What's the point? Why not show something instead of tracking idle video directly into the camera?
Keep it visual, folks!
Like I said: if you didn't make it to Round 2, you deserve a pat on the back for your attempt and your willingness to learn.
To those who were eliminated: as I said in another thread, hats off to you. You may not have made it into the next round, but there's something to be said about a willingness to put yourselves "out there." Personally, I felt very reassured about the state of photojournalism when Kev announced there were over 400 entries into the contest. Striving to improve our profession is something that keeps it from dying. Kudos!
To those who critiqued others: first and foremost: this is a learning experience. Entrants that didn't make it to Round 2 are probably wondering why. We're all pretty thick-skinned, but that doesn't mean the limits need to be tested. In a nutshell: keep the criticism constructive.
Finally, this is not an NPPA contest, but folks might have an opinion or preference about something they learned from the NPPA. Deal with it! I don't want to see such a great opportunity descend into a thread filled with bashing and acronym overuse. Most importantly, this is our opportunity to right whatever wrongs we've complained about. With the emergence of this contest, the time for talk has come to an end.
That said, I'll kick it off:
Effort - Most of the packages that I judged showed effort in one form or another. I could tell that a lot of stories were shot by photogs who were striving to create their own shooting style. Some of their attempts worked, others did not. Trial-and-error leads a photog to their own established style, nothing else. A good shooter isn't "born" with the ability to shoot great stories; they learn and make mistakes just like everyone else. Some might make fewer mistakes than others. In the long run, though, that doesn't mean a whole lot.
I'll preface the rest of this general critique with this: I don't really like thinking of our creativity as being defined by "rules." Having a set of rules inhibits your ability to try working in a different way. There's no reason to constantly refer to a set of your tricks as "rules," and that's because you so often want the opportunity to work outside of them.
Rules create needless barriers. Barriers can potentially keep a newbie photog boxed in, worried about trying something new in fear of breaking some stupid rule.
The Overall Sequence - I like stories that have a beginning, middle, and end. Albeit, some stories (breaking news, for example) might not have a chance to use that idea. However, you are assembling a story. Like any story, it should have all the right components.
A few stories didn't have any real direction. I think there's a few issues that reach the root of this problem. First, communication between you and your reporter. It never hurts to suggest how the story should be put together. You're part of a team, not just the guy who totes around thousands of dollars worth of equipment. When the teammates talk to each other, a lot more can get done -- and in a more interesting way.
Your cohort might appreciate the fact that you're thinking like you are. It's easy for anyone to get bogged down by facts; be the anchor that helps keep the ship in the here-and-now. You're a visual storyteller, not a scrapbooker for random images.
Nat Sound - it brings a story to life. Nats doesn't have to be just a chainsaw, opening door, click of the mouse, or punch of the keyboard. Nats can come from a guy you mic'd up and followed around for your story.
Nat breaks are great little tricks used to break up the monotony of a long sound bite. You don't need to break up every long sound bite you come across; some are left better to breathe on their own.
However, in the contest, I noticed a number of missed nat sound opportunities. I expected to hear some great, quick clips in natural pauses in tracks. Unfortunately, a lot of great opportunities were ruined by the reporter's track. Look for nat opportunities in everything you shoot! Snapping the viewer's attention back to the story every once in a while is a great way to keep them from getting sucked in by a monotonous reporter track.
Pacing - It's tricky. You don't want to constantly shutter through ten images in a few seconds during a sad story or some sort of memoir. Likewise, you don't want to leave one stagnant shot up for ten seconds during a story with lots and lots of action. Many stories you'll edit will have a "rhythmic" feel and flow to them.
That said, a few stories I watched felt natural. Some did not. One of the problems I noticed was indecisiveness. Sure, you've got a lot of great shots, but that doesn't mean you need to cram them all into a two-minute piece. Let the beautiful shots breathe. Use your less-favorite shots in the quick pops and sequences. You like them, but you don't care for them as much as your favorite shots, so why should you give the viewer more time to watch the mundane? Stay away from cramming just to fit everything you love into your story.
Hell, your unused shots might make sense in a later package. Remember how you snagged that shot, remember what could've made it just a little better, and toss it into your bag of tricks. There you have it: trial-and-error at work.
Finally (for this installment, at least), Reporter Stand-Ups - it was probably my biggest complaint. The category itself had some very worthwhile stand-ups, but 95% of the stories I watched had stand-ups that just didn't add a damn thing. In fact, I would've rather seen what the reporter was talking about instead of watching the reporter walk around and gesture.
True, we don't have a lot of control over a reporter that insists on putting themselves in the story. However, we do have a great deal of control over what the stand-up looks like. Keep the reporter involved! If they want to rattle off a bunch of facts, ask them why. What's the point? Why not show something instead of tracking idle video directly into the camera?
Keep it visual, folks!
Like I said: if you didn't make it to Round 2, you deserve a pat on the back for your attempt and your willingness to learn.