What have you learned from your Audience Feedback?

I have learned many things from my audience feedback, both positive and negative aspects of my work. Whether the comments were positive of negative, they have helped me to learn a great deal about what worked well within my Short Film and what improvements I could've made.

My Documentaries opens with the audience seeing magazines on a shelf. People in the feedback said they liked the fact the magazines were shown as they represented the media really well visually, whilst I was talking about the media via the means of a voiceover. They did say however in my feedback, that this was one of the few times the media were mentioned/included in my short. Considering the main aim of my documentary was to discover whether or not the media influenced the way someone feels about their appearance the media played a key roll and some people in the feedback felt as though I should've brought the media into it more, and the magazines being shown were one of the few times this happened.

After this shot, the audience still see some magazines but the camera focuses specifically on the beautiful women that are on the front covers. The audience felt this was good as it still meant the media was involved in the film and that by showing the 'perfect' airbrushed images helped to demonstrate my point that the media put pressure on people to conform to a certain image. They did say however in some of the feedback sheets that one of the magazines (the first one show) was considerably creased which didn't look professional. In hind sight, I probably shouldn't have included this specific magazine and chose another front cover to feature in my documentary. None the less, I feel it was important to show the images of these unrealistic models.

The shot that comes after this was arguably the most popular mentioned in my feedback, it is of me putting on my make up. A few said they liked the fact this scene was sped up and faster than any of the other shots, as this made it look different and stand out from the others. They also tended to say that they liked how I was shown in my documentary, as it introduced me, which they felt was important because it was me who was doing the voiceover and the overall aim of the short film is to answer a question I want to find out - it is personal to me. Furthermore, they liked that it was me putting on my make up, as the theme of the documentary is how someone feels about the way they look, therefore putting my make up on allows this theme to be consistent throughout. The downside about this shot however was that some people suggested it was a shame I wasn't quite sitting central within the frame. I am sitting slightly more to one side, whereas it would've been better for me to be placed in the centre of the shot. I did attempt to fix this as I had realised the issue myself, however using the cropping tool in imovie meant that it also cropped some of my shoulder too, which made it look worse therefore I decided to leave it how it was. A final negative also was that people said it was a shame this was the only time I was seen in the documentary. They felt it would've been good if I was a consistent presenter throughout. It originally was my idea to do this, however I realised due to practicality it was best if I wasn't shown all the time in my documentary. This was because then I would have to have someone filming me all the time too, which isn't always appropriate.

The 4th shot shown was of me driving in a car. There are two shots of people driving in cars in my documentary, one of me towards the start and one of my friend Beth featured later in the short. Something mentioned in the feedback was that they liked how I had filmed people in cars as these are iconic documentary shots as many documentaries include showing someone in a vehicle or some form of transport, i.e. a train. They also mentioned they liked how i'd used varied shots. From outside of the cars, to inside showing Beth's face, her turning the wheel as well as through her car windscreen, I didn't use just one long shot in the car like documentaries can do occasionally.

Next, after a mini introduction of what my film entails the title of my documentary is shown. A positive about this that was mentioned was that the title didn't come in straight away. Like with the cars being shown, people felt this element was something that was iconic to documentaries, as demonstrated (one person said) in many done by Cherry Healey on BBC 3. People also tended to say by having an introduction about the documentary before bringing in the title it was able to give them an overview about the aim of the piece which mean't they were engaged. The downside about the title that was mentioned, as well as with the credits at the end was that even though the colour of the font was good (pink) as it went well with my target audience (young females) the font and background colour of the text (white) was very bland and not very exciting. People felt I could've chosen a fancier font and had a background image which related to my documentary. Having said this, some complimented the chosen font indicating that it was easy to read, plus one person said they liked the credits at the end because they were quick so didn't become tedious.

One positive mentioned was that when arriving at places where the interviews were being conducted I did establishing shots outside of the venues. This is demonstrated outside of the 'Sk;n' clinic and outside Beth's Sixth Form, 'Wymondham High Sixth Form.' People mentioned that it was good to have establishing shots so that the audience could see where the interview was taking place and some even said it helped to move the documentary forward from one interview to the next. It made it clear that the documentary had moved from one location to another.

A shot which wasn't very popular was inside of the Sk;n clinic. The audience felt this wasn't really necessary and an establishing shot of outside of the clinic was all that was needed before seeing the interview. They said the reception area looked dark so could've done with brightening up in iMovie. They did however, like the shot of the beauty product on the shelf. Some people commented that this demonstrated just how focused the clinic was on a person's appearance. 1 person also said that it was good to see the beauty products close up, a camera angle which wasn't often used.

Inside the Sk'n clinic I interviewed Dr Clibbon and Victoria and later at 'Wymondham High Sixth Form' I interviewed Beth. One of the most positive comments mentioned in feedback was that people liked that I had interviewed experts within the cosmetic industry, they said it showed that I went out of my way to contact people that knew what they were talking about, plus the fact interviewing experts is something commonly shown in Documentaries. Having said this, and as mentioned earlier, people felt an expert from the Media industry would've been good to include too, in order to create a more balanced argument. They also liked Beth's interview as she has a disfigurement therefore they felt it was really valuable talking to someone who could tell the audience how the media affected the way they felt about their self esteem.

One thing they liked more about Beth's interview was that varied shots were used. Interviews can sometimes be quite bland but by interviewing Beth using varied camera angles help to make the interview more interesting to watch. In contrast, a negative mentioned about Dr clibbons interview was that in his there were no varied camera angles. It is simply him talking stationary into a camera. Some people found this quite boring and I probably could've done with having another camera in the room to get him from two different angles. Having said this, I felt this was easier to do when interviewing Beth as I had two hours to complete her interview whereas with Dr Clibbon he had other patients to see so time was limiting. I did attempt to make this interview more interesting however by swapping between his interview and Victoria's in order to break up shots slightly which people felt worked well. They specifically liked how Victoria was interviewed whilst performing treatment, instead of doing a simple sit down interview. A negative mentioned about Victoria's interview however was the volume levels, people said at times it was difficult to hear her. This was something I tried to rectify by downloading iMovie 11' in order to take out some of the background noise. In doing so, this meant that Victoria's voice was also muted slightly. Regardless of this, I felt it was still important to include her interview as she is an expert in the industry and knows whether the media influences the way someone feels about their appearance.

After each interview, I summarised each persons comments by using images on the screen and through the means of the voiceover. Many people mentioned they liked how i'd summarised their points, making them clear and concise and using the images made this more interesting. Some pointed out that it would've been better if i'd have summarised the points by me being shown on camera, as many presenters featured in documentaries do. However, as I said earlier, i'd decided not to be in my documentary due to practical issues. Some also said that although the images I used were good, I could've taken my own images and made the more personal to my short film. This I don't think would've worked because of the fact I am useless at drawing and getting a primary image of one of the people I used (Katy Piper) would not have been possible.

Although I was rarely featured in my Documentary, my voice was a prominent fixture throughout and a voiceover was used regularly in my film. Comments were made that my voice was clear to hear and engaging, 2 people also mentioned that some of the facts I mentioned were good. These included: ''in he UK we spend approximately two billion on magazines per year, with over 3,300 to chose from'' and ''My names Jenna and like a massive 84% of people my age, I have insecurities about the way I look.'' People said this enabled my Documentary to appear more professional and facts help an audience to feel as though a person knows and has researched what they are talking about. A further comment made about the voiceover was that it matched the images that were shown on screen.

Finally, the last aspect of my film which was mentioned in feedback was how steady shots were. Some shots were very steady, such as the interview with Dr Clibbon and me putting on my make up, this was because each time a camera was situated on a tripod and did not move. In contrast, other shots such as when Victoria was being interviewed and when in the car with Beth are not so steady (this can be demonstrated above as the picture is blurred.) Opinions on uneven shots were very mixed. Some felt this did not work and made my documentary appear unprofessional whereas others felt as though it added to the feel of a true documentary style because often shots are not completely 100% steady.

In conclusion, there were positive and negatives about my documentary but overall I was happy with the feedback, whether it be positive comments or constructive criticism. From the feedback I have learnt several things. One of these is that people like traditional documentary elements to be included, for instance shots of people in cars. Secondly, people liked how i'd included experts within the industry however I should have included a expert from the media industry to be interviewed, in order to make the argument more balanced. Some people like steady shots, others liked some that were shakier, so including a balanced mixture of both works well. I need to ensure that shots a central when focusing on something and when conducting interviews vary shot angles to make them appear more interesting. Check that interviewees can be heard effectively whilst shooting, not discover they can't be heard very well when uploading footage. Establishing shots of buildings are good to move the documentary forward and introduce a new location, interior shots of a place are not necessary, I could've gone straight into the interview. Summarising an interviewees points is a good idea, but people prefer a presenter present in a Documentary instead of a voiceover all the time. People like the title not coming in straight away in a documentary, they prefer the aim of the documentary to be explained firstly. I should've made the title/credits of my piece better by having a different background image and slightly fancier font, although still making it clear to read like my original one that I chose. Lastly, people like documentaries to include facts, allowing the documentary to appear more professional.