DOCUMENTARY

If the video does not play, click this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXSp9RdAtak&feature=youtu.be

NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT PRODUCTION

RADIO ADVERTISEMENT PRODUCTION

If the above video does not play, click here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0e9BYfTI0Q&feature=BFa&list=HL1325758405&lf=mh_lolz

EVALUATION

Question Two on Prezi

If the presentation will not load, click here - http://prezi.com/gfeqooeojpzv/question-two/

This presentation presents the three products I created in different form.
The above presentation was done on Prezi, another form of technology used to create my entire production and evaluation.

Question One
In what ways does your media product use, develop or challenge forms and conventions of real media products?

Our media product uses the forms and conventions of real media products by following them. We created our documentary by using conventions, such as, including interviews to provide evidence. This makes our documentary more creditable and informative to viewers. It also brings the audience into the documentary as they have a say in what is being discussed.

The codes and conventions of documentaries are the use of the rules of thirds, voxpops, narration and interviews. The rules of thirds is used to allow some access to view the background, this is usually used in most shots, such as, interviews and cutaways. Voxpops are used to give quick opinions of the public, in involves them all answering the same question in a short form. Narration is used to guide the documentary and give reasons and answers to what is happening and why. Interviews are used to give factual information and/or opinions from relevant people and are often supported by cutaways and the narration. Despite there being multiple sub genres to documentaries, they all usually follow these codes and conventions. Other types of genres that are found within documentaries include drama, nature, scientific, crime, biography, social and entertainment.

This is a screenshot of a section of voxpops used in our documentary.

The image on the left is of an interview within our documentary showing the rules of thirds convention being followed. The image on the right is of an actual documentary on Channel 4, One Born Every Minute, to show the comparison of our documentary to professional ones in terms of filming.




If the above video does not work, click this link http://youtu.be/1uiF7_WLWx8

This above video is a directors commentary of our documentary produced by myself, it discussed the following -

It develops the typical forms and conventions of real media products in multiple ways. These ways include interviews, voxpops, rules of thirds, cutaways and genre. One way is through the use of the camera, this includes the framing and mise en scene. Our framing followed the simple rules of thirds convention in order to allow our main focus to take to the subject in the interview, but still allowing the background to be present, showing relevant aspects within the shot. Our framing supports the mise en scene being relevant and necessary to what is being discussed or to who the person is within the interviews. As most documentaries do, we alternated which side each interview was taken on to give variation.

The typical conventions of documentaries was furthered by presenting multiple voxpops of people answering one simple question with a one or two word minimal answer. This shows a quick overview of the public's opinion and can make the audience feel more involved so we followed this convention accordingly. In terms of sound, we had one main track playing beneath the entire documentary, this is known as the 'music bed' and the volume of this sound was reduced during the interviews and the voiceover. Our voiceover was relevant to the documentary as it was informative, which is what we wanted our documentary to appear as. When advertising a production, the voiceover is conventionally the same as the one within the documentary so we stood by this and used the same person.

Our media product does not challenge any forms or conventions of real media products. We decided not to do this as it would make it more complex for ourselves, it would not look like a documentary and it would not look as professional. It is narrated accordingly to the structure. We structured our documentary to present multiple takeaways and to show the popularity of them in this day in age. The documentary then progresses on to the positives and then negatives of takeouts, with supporting interviews from a takeout owner and a science tutor. Opinions are weaved in where necessary to relate the public to the documentary, this is through interviews and voxpops.

During interviews we used graphics, like professional documentaries, to present the name and profession of the interviewee to the audience. We used a dissolve to blend this text into the footage as the interview began, the dissolve meant that full focus could remain on the interviewee and what they were discussing without interruption. The graphics were used on the first interview with each interviewee, this was to get the audience to recognise who each person is. After watching and analysing multiple professional documentaries, I have discovered this convention.

Over the top of voiceovers and interviews we placed relevant cutaways which gave a visual insight to what was being discussed during that particular time. The cutaways were short and many were used and followed on from one another. This is a convention of documentaries and to further it we used our cutaways to tell a story. By this I mean that we would have an interviewee describing the process of something and our cutaways would lead one on to another in a linear sequence, showing the chronological order of events. Not only did our cutaways do this but they also disguised any jump cuts between shots. The cutaways were placed where there were jump cuts, the transitions between interviews, during long speeches and voiceovers. The purpose of cutaways is to give the audience something to look at whilst information is being given, it often draws in the attention and gives a focus to the topic. Images can often be more impacting than audio so it is good to give a variety of both, it also keeps the audience more engaged.

Documentaries

View more presentations from kellaayjayne.

If the above presentation does not work, click this link http://www.slideshare.net/kellaayjayne/documentaries-10840945


Question Two
How effective is the combination of your main product and ancillary texts?

Links Between Products on Prezi

If the above presentation does not work, click this link http://prezi.com/kjycpmqi9qri/links-between-products/

This is my print advert in comparason to an actual professional print advert. Mine is on the left, the professional one is on the right. It compares as it follows all of the listed codes and conventions stated in Codes And Conventions Of Newspaper Advertisements.

 You can tell it looks professional as there is a main key image central to the entire production, the strap line is in the same location, as is the Channel 4 logo, there is a colour scheme throughout and you can see everything you need to as the colours emphasis it, including the block of colour behind the scheduling and title.

This is my print advert with the title. Below is the documentary with the title. The title remains the same throughout, thus, another comparason.

The poster and the radio advert have reflected the themes that we used within our documentary by using the same narrative voiceover, the same slogan, the same voxpops and the same title name. This means that each product is relevant to one another and the audience can see this both visually and audically. They are branded for Channel 4 as Channel 4 often presents documentaries. Channel 4 is also a student channel and our documentary is aimed at people between the ages 17-25, typical students. It is targeting this age band because these are the most likely, as research shows, to consume more takeouts. The print advert used the Channel 4 logo in bright colours as Channel 4 portrays multiple colour schemes for different programmes. The Channel 4 logo is placed on the right hand side in the middle as most of their adverts do, with the scheduling and title on the left hand side in the bottom corner with a colooured box to emphasis its presence.

Question Three
What have you learned from your audience feedback?

Audience feeback is vital in media productions because without it you would not know whether your audience liked it or not. You would not know what they liked or what they did not like. Without positive and negative feeback, critical feeback, you would not be able to improve for next time and you would be in the dark about how to go about making a successful production. I have used audience feedback to give my own analysis of my media products and to gain knowledge on what worked and what did not, which will allow me to consider changes for next time.

"The quality of the filming is good, but the sound keeps changing volume," said Simon Aspinall.

Daniel Brown said, "Gread video well put together, good camera angles, wasn't boring, kept me informed but I didn't feel bored watching it. Overall, great video, you should be proud."

Conor watching our documentary


If the above video does not play, click this link http://youtu.be/XB9tjoyOFQQ


Conor commenting on our documentary



If the above video does not play, click this link http://youtu.be/gzxUxEEgoZk


The audience feedback has allowed me to see both the positives and the negatives of our productions, and where we could improve on it next time. Audience feedback showed me the successful aspects of our documentary. These positives include the interviews that were relevant to the message within the documentary, the relevance and informative information provided by the voiceover and the interviews, the position of the interviews which allowed the background mise en scene to be visible, and the use of supportive cutaways to provide entertainment whilst the voiceover and the interviews were progressing. Other pressing positives are the choice of soundtrack as the audience found it relevant and interesting, and the cutaways which presented relevant key points to what was being said.

Question 5 in the group Audience Feedback was an important question to ask as the feedback allowed us to see what our audience thought of the sound quality. The question and results are as follow.

5) On a scale of 1 to 5 with five being the most positive, how was the quality of the sound within the documentary?
1 - 0
2 - 0
3 - 4
4 - 5
5 - 1

To summarise, our sound was not perfect, however, no one rated it less than 3 so it was bareable. The sound was said to be 'alternating in volume' and there was 'too much background noise in places.' To improve this next time we could film in a different area and analysis the effects of this before filming, we could also listen to the audio through the headphones throughout the entire production as we will be aware that this needs to be done.

The sound was difficult to alter as we chose places to film which had uncontrolable background noise, such places include Priestley College canteen. Feedback is important as it allows us to note where improvements can be made and what can be left the same. From this feedback we can gather that we had good quality sound in some places, however, it kept altering volume levels and there was high levels of background noise.

The audience feedback that I received shows me that our documentary had the following negatives, the sound levels that kept changing when the footage switched between interviews and the voiceover as the ambient background noise was loud and quiet in different areas.

Collectively, these positives and negatives affected my overall product in different ways. The negatives, such as, the angle of how some cutaways were filmed, affected the documentary as the quality was reduced. This meant that the action we were trying to portray was not noticed as much as the person in the shot may have been positioned wrongly and their body was in the shot or that the camera was shaking during a panning or crabbing shot. These factors make the documentary look unprofessional.

I feel that myself and the group could have done better, however, it was difficult to get things done at the start as it seemed like no one would do anything on their own. The work load was unevenly spread and I, personally, felt like I was left to do the work. The group selected me as a team leader when I felt we should have all been incharged and had a say, despite this, my ideas weren't followed through with and we made little production. Initially, after filming, I was left to edit the footage which was not very good and we decided not to use it. Upon this, we went out as a team to film more footage and edited it together. Me and Jack came in for an entire day to correct the editing and get it up to 3 minutes of solid documentary. This was the turning point and our group became more successful, however, one member of the group was not doing their share of the work so loose ends were still untied.

I think that I could have probably have took charge and done the work by myself but I did not think this would work and it wouldn't be fair as it is a team effort and we all need a say in it. I also made the mistake of capturing the print advert image in poor lighting on my HTC Mozart phone rather than on a stills camera. This meant that I had to keep capturing the image and changing the initial idea to make it more interesting. All of this was recognised and done after editing each individual image, as shown in the print advert section of my blog.


Question Four
How did you use media technologies in the construction and research, planning and evaluation stages?

In various stages of production, technology was used throughout, in many ways, to make it professional and to gain an understanding of the work and equipment efforts put in to creating a documentary. To create our documentary, a lot of work was required as there was more than one stage to complete it. Each section of the documentary required the use of multiple technologies.

RESEARCH STAGE
The very first piece of technology used was during the research stage of our production. We used the DVD Player to watch existing documentaries. This allowed us to see what documentaries look like and gave us chance to analyse them and record the codes and conventions of documentaries. By gaining this knowledge we could stick to the codes and conventions and make a professional looking documentary.

During this stage we conducted a lot of computer work on programmes, such as, Microsoft Word and the Internet. Questionnaires we produced on Microsoft Word and we then printed off multiple copies which we handed out to random members of the general public. The feedback from this allowed us to see what the general public would like to see and gave us suggests for a formal proposal as well as a running order. This data was collated with the use of Microsoft Excel which gave us an easy reading understanding of what the public wanted from our documentary. It allowed us to present the found information in the form of pie charts which could be easily analysed. We copied these pie charts and the collated tally researchs onto Microsoft Word and wrote a descriptive analysis beneath. These we then saved as images by Print Screening the work and cropping it, then placing it onto Paint where it was then saved as a JPEG image and uploaded to Blogger.com.

At this researching stage of production, I have found that most technologies link in together as proven above. An example being that we used Microsoft Word to create questionnaires and then Microsoft Excel was used to collate the information and then Microsoft Word was used again to present the findings.

Technologies Used In The Research Stage

View more presentations from kellaayjayne

PLANNING STAGE
The first stage was the planning stage where we thought of initial ideas for the documentary. In order to do this we needed to undergo the researching stage. Research was carried out both primarily and secondardy to ensure we had a scope of the industry and target audience preferences.

The primary research we did was conducting questionnaires, at this point, we used an XM2 Canon Camera to record some of the questionnaires in an interview format. We used a JCV Deck to insert the tape and capture the footage onto Premire. This was saved and put onto Youtube.com so it could be embedded and put onto Blogger.com which is where our entire production is individually logged on to. This stage allowed us to conduct and find sufficient audience research to gain an understanding of how successful our documentary would be, along with suggestions for its content. Our questionnaires were produced on Microsoft Word and then printed for distribution. Upon collecting them in, we tallied the answers and recorded the collated information on Microsoft Excel to convert them into pie charts for easy reading and understanding, as well as a descriptive paragraph to explain it.

The secondary research that we undertook was on the Internet to find out about the codes and conventions of documentaries as well as to look into various documentaries and analyse them. The internet was also used here to create a blog with uploaded videos, presentations and images which were put onto Slideshare.net to convert to a video. Upon finding this research we drew out a sketch of the running order for our documentary, this was in the layout of a storyboard. We copied this onto the computer by scanning it in and saving each A3 image as a JPEG image which we could then upload onto Blogger.com.

Technologies Used In The Planning Stage

View more presentations from kellaayjayne.

CONSTRUCTION STAGE

This is our group with the filming and editing equpiment, preparing to film an interview in the blue screen room.

The next stage of production was the construction stage. During this stage, I captured screen shots of the editing on the computer, this was of the work being produced on Premire. I also took pictures of us creating and filming some footage, which is used within the evaluation to show evidence of the technology used. This was done with a Samsung Still Camera and a HTC Phone camera to show use of various equipment. The Stills Camera was also used to take pictures of the print advert which was later edited on Adobe Photoshop. The filming was done using an XM2 Canon Camera and Jessops Tripod. This camera and tripod allowed us to vary the camera angles and movement to suit the documentary in terms of interviews and cut aways. The camera was used to film the entire five minutes of production in our edit decision list and running order, and the tripod was used to keep it steady so there was no camera shake. As evidence that it was us who created this documentary we used stills cameras and camera phones. Although cameras were used to capture the documentary production, they were also used to get images for our print advert.

This is how I used Adobe Photoshop to edit the print advert. Here is an example of how the lasso tool was used to erase some of the unwanted items in the background so that the main focus is on the key image of the person eating the burger.

This is the original image

Open the image in Adobe Photoshop

Drag this image onto a new layer to unlock it so you can edit on this one but keep the original image increase you go wrong

Once duplicated you need to click the lasso tool on the tool bar on the left hand side of the screen

Once that has been selected you need to draw arround your image by clicked at each point where you want the lasso tool to outline

It will then draw a black and white dotted line around what you have selected and you press 'Delete' on your keyboard

On Microsoft Word, we presented our logging and edit decision list sheets to portray evidence of our filming. This supports our filming diary which also provides evidence of our filming efforts. By creating this sheets we had help with our editing stages as we could see exactly what we filmed and where it was in the editing bin on Adobe Premire. Various software packages, such as, Adobe Photoshop CS5 and Adobe Premiere, were used to create the print advert and radio advert, as well as the audio voiceover within the actual documentary. The audio for the voiceover in both the documentary and the radio advert was recorded in the radio suite at Priestley College. Here, the audio could be recorded professionally without any background noise, allowing the entire focus of high quality sound to comes from the subject within the productions.

Sound was not only recorded in the radio suite, it was picked up and recorded by the XM2 Canon Cameras and microphones. These were used to record sound during vox pops and interviews. This made it easier to film as the microphones are easy to hide and can still pick up sound. It is easier than asking permission and brinigng someone to record within the radio suite. By using a microphone we can film in a relevant place, giving relevant mise en scene to what is being discussed, whilst presenting the interviewee in a more natural environment. Microphones have the advantage of allowing us to be mobile and film wherever we want.

The below images are of the radio room which was used to record the voiceovers for both the documentary and the radio advertisement.

We used the internet again to find archive material for our documentary, this includes McDonald's television adverts, Subway television adverts and footage from Supersized Vs Superskinny. We needed these materials to support points being made and to follow the convention of documentaries, this being to use other materials to emphasis and provide evidence to a particular point. Archive footage was taken from Youtube.com, Google.com and Channel 4 on Demand. These had to be approved by a member of the Media department for we used Hotmail.com to email the archive footage which we saved to the D drive on a particular computer, allowing us to access them again. Once approved we used we used the Adobe Premiere editing software to fit them into our documentary.

Technologies Used In The Construction Stage

View more presentations from kellaayjayne.

EVALUTION STAGE

To begin my evaluation, I created a short presentation to show what my productions are; a documentary, a print advert and a radio advert. This initial presentation was conducted and is presented on Prezi.com and I have posted a link for the website to play my presentation as well as posting it on my blog. The presentation scrolls and passes through the various parts to the presentation, it does this for you if you click the arrow. This makes it simple to view, and keeps it in the format of a presentation as it navigates through the poster. A benefit of this to my evaluation is that it shows the key elements that my entire blog will present and it shows, in order, the various stages of the products.

How Things Were Done

This is me filming whilst we used the blue screen as the background of an interview. The blue screen allows you to place any image you want in the background so if you cannot find mise en scene you particularly want then you can apply it in the editing stages. We put the blue screen in to put in our own images of takeout food and logo behind people during interviews and this was done on Adobe Premiere Pro. The entire editing was done on Adobe Premiere Pro and below is an example of how to grab footage off the tmeline by cutting it down.

When placing cutaways over the top of interviews and other footage whilst using Adobe Premiere Pro we had to lock the sound bars so that when selecting the matching footage to that sound to delete it, it would not delete aswell. We did this because we wanted the sound to play over the top of the footage but we wanted different footage playing over that. Another way of doing this when we wanted to keep some of the footage but wanted a cutaway somewhere within it is by placing the cutaway footage or image on the bar above the other piece of footage.

For the directors commentary I wanted to play my voice over the top of the playing documentary. In order to do this I locked all of the footage bars and deleted all of the audio bars so that I could place my recorded commentary over the top. I recorded myself using a Stills Camera which was then uploaded onto the computer and exported onto Adobe Premiere Pro and added to the documentary. This was all exported and uploaded to YouTube where I embedded it onto my blog.

AUDIENCE FEEDBACK

Questionnaire

We distributed ten questionnaires to ten members of the general public to get productive feedback on our finished documentary.

1) Do you feel that the first 20 seconds of opening sequence took your attention?
Yes - 8
No - 2

To summarise, the majority of our questionnaire participents found our documentary attention grabbing within the first 20 seconds, the opening sequence. I think that the opening title ruined the opening sequence slightly as they were altered and put into a poor font for the graphics. The voxpops could have caught attention as people were giving their opinion and make the audience think about what theirs is too. It was a qick paced opening sequence with a catchy opening music bed.

2) Do you think that the documentary was ordered well?
Yes - 10
No - 0

To summarise, all of the respondents thought that our documentary was well ordered in terms of how the footage was edited to create a story type documentary. Whenever a point was made in an interview or by the voiceover it was placed with a relevant cutaway. The cutaways were put together to link in with one another, creating a story or a process of something, reflecting the stages of food being made, purchased and consumed.

3) Does the documentary have good continuity?
Yes - 10
No - 0

To summarise, all of the footage was placed in chronological order to how it was filmed so none of the footage had any poor continuity were objects had moved or changed. We prevented this by having people where we wanted them and not having random people in the background. We also tried to film in order of events so things we not everywhere.

4) Are the graphics appropriately used for the documentary?
Yes - 10
No - 0

To summarise, the only graphics used were those to give the name and title of the interviewees and they 'weren't over used' and they 'weren't taking focus away from the interviewee.' This was because we used a plain white font and put the text in the opposite bottom corner to the interviewee. The font was not oversized and did not run over onto the interviewee.

5) On a scale of 1 to 5 with five being the most positive, how was the quality of the sound within the documentary?
1 - 0
2 - 0
3 - 4
4 - 5
5 - 1

To summarise, our sound was not perfect, however, no one rated it less than 3 so it was bareable. The sound was said to be 'alternating in volume' and there was 'too much background noise in places.' To improve this next time we could film in a different area and analysis the effects of this before filming, we could also listen to the audio through the headphones throughout the entire production as we will be aware that this needs to be done.

6) How would you compare the documentary to professional documentaries on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being not at all and 5 being impressively?
1 - 0
2 - 3
3 - 1
4 - 6
5 - 0

To summarise, the majority of respondents found our documentary very comparable to profressional documentaries. This will be down to the use of Adobe Premiere Pro and the rules of thirds composition. I think this is from the following of codes and conventions of documentaries, such as, the rules of thirds, the voxpops, the interviews and the narrative voiceover.

7) How informative would you rate the documentary as? Rate on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being not at all informative and 5 being highly informative.
1 - 0
2 - 0
3 - 1
4 - 4
5 - 5

To summarise, most participents found the documentary to be highly informative. This was most probably down to the factual information given in the interviews. It was the choice of questioning during the interviews and the images which supported this that gave it an effective presentation.

8) Would you say that the documentary was entertaining or not? Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being not entertaining at all and 5 being extremely entertaining.
1 - 1
2 - 2
3 - 4
4 - 2
5 - 1

To summarise, our feedback was scattered as people have different opinions of what is entertaining. The majority of the respondents thought that our documentary was moderately entertaining, this could be down to the music bed choice and the images of food. The bring down from the entertainment may have been the factual interviews, showing negative factors in which many people may choose to ignore. The entertainment may have come down to the structure of the editing and how it presented the footage and information. Maybe because we spread our the discussion and didn't present every postive with a negative they found it more so interesting than not.

9) Do you think that the print advertisement is eye-catching?
Yes - 10
No - 0

To summarise, everyone who took part in the questionnaire thought that the print advertisement was eye-catching. It was 'bright, outstanding, to the point, centred, easy to see and has a good message' This was done on Photoshop and thge colour scheme was picked out by matching the colours within the burger and of the vegetables in the documentary. The burger was the central focus as it is a typical kind of takeout and is also used within the documentary.

10) Do you think that the print advertisement is relevant to the documentary?
Yes - 10
No - 0

To summarise, all of the respondents shared the opinion that our print advertisement was relevant to the documentary, meaning that it successfully presented what the documentary was about. As this presented the documentary well, it shows that the radio advert did the same too. The wording and colours we relevant and the burger was central which indicated the theme and topic of the documentary.

11) Does the radio advertisement sound relevant to the documentary and present it as interesting?
Yes - 10
No - 0

To summarise, one-hundred percent of participents thought that our radio advertisement was relevant to our documentary and shown it to be interesting. This was due to the voxpops and the interview about the negatives of takeouts that we used in the documentary being used in the radio advert. The same voiceover was also used which also gave a similarity; it also gave the correct information about the documentary in terms of scheduling and the slogan. 

12) Would you rate the camera work as effective or uneffective throughout the entire documentary? Rate on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being extremely uneffective and 5 being highly effective.
1 - 0
2 - 0
3 - 4
4 - 4
5 - 2

To summarise, none of the participents thought that the quality of our documentary was poor and uneffective. The majority of them, as results portray, thought that the quality was average and did give effect.

13) Do you think that the placement of the subjects within the interviews is of a high standard or not? Please rate your answer in terms of 1 to 5 with 1 being a poor quality layout and 5 being high standard.
1 - 0
2 - 0
3 - 0
4 - 5
5 - 5

To summarise, according to our questionnaire analysis, our documentary had correct placing, following the rules of thirds, when it came to cutaways, voxpops and interviews. Next time, to get all of our ratings as a 5 out of 5 we could take more shots of each thing to increase the chances of getting a better, more asthetic camera angle.

14) On the whole, do the documentary, print advert and the radio advert interlink with each other to appear relevant?
Yes - 10
No - 0

To summarise, our respondents thought that all three of our media products linked with each other and supported the main point and theme of takeaways. This could suggest that we do not need to make any adjustments in the future and clarafies that we know how to make multiple media products with the same key theme.

15) Do you think that the documentary fits the typical programme types of Channel 4 or does it belong on a different channel?
Yes - 10
No - 0

To summarise, all of the participents thought that the documentary fits the characteristics of Channel 4. This also suggests that our audience is correct aswell as the theme of our documentary.

We also put our documentary, radio advert and print advert onto Facebook and Youtube.

PRELIMINARY EXERCISE

Video





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGP5U3ThWo4&feature=player_embedded

Evaluation

For our Prelim we worked in small groups to produce a short documentary on mobile phones. To analyse the entire production and the final outcome we discussed what went right and what went wrong. Throughout the task we used various equipment and technology. Such included a video camera to film the entire thing, a small clip on microphone was attempted to be used to amplify the interview sound, Adobe Premiere Pro CS5 to do all of the editing. Editing stages involved adding cut aways, selecting the right backing track sound, altering the volume of the interviews so they weren’t drowned out and added a title page to give the credits and the name of the documentary.

What went right?

-          Finding multiple people to interview so we could get different reactions to the questions. This gave variation to the documentary, making it less boring to watch.

-          We placed the camera in the correct place when filming the interview. The interviewer was not in the shot and the interviewee was, they also looked like they were looking at someone rather than looking like they were looking at a wall.

-          The lighting during the filming was sufficient as we closed off any light sources that were directed into the camera. An example of this was when we filmed a cut away against the window and we shut the blinds.

-          Our backing track was carefully chosen and matched the pace of the visual elements of the video. The song is popular and will hopefully make the documentary more interesting.

What went wrong?

-          Interviewee was talking too quietly and we struggled to turn up the volume on it during the editing stages. The background sound was overpowering in comparison so we had to reduce this when the interviewee was talking.

-          Initially we didn’t film enough cut aways so it made the editing stages difficult as we had to fill in shot transactions with images of phones, this got repetitive.

-          We didn’t film the interviews against a relevant background so the mise en scene looks misplaced and spontaneous. This was down to laziness within the group and the lack of motivation during this stage because the questions had to be asked constantly.

-          The microphone wasn’t working so we couldn’t increase the volume of the interviewee which was later a problem when editing.

What can be improved?

-          We could have increased the number of interviews. This can be improved at any point in the documentary production stages because you can add it in at any point during the editing stages. This would be better because you can ensure that you don’t have too many interviews which will overrule the entire interview. Filming them during the editing stages can give you time to establish where you want them within the documentary.

-          We could have selected a better destination for the interview so the background was more relevant. This would make the documentary slightly more interesting as the viewers would have something to look at whilst the interview is taking place. This can be done by either using a blue screen which can later be transformed into a relevant background during editing stages or simply by placing the interview in the foreground of a relevant background image such as a poster or in a phone shop.

-          We could have found and used a working microphone to increase the volume of the interviewees. This can be done by next time putting in the effort to find a working one or borrowing one of another group.

-          We could have filmed more cut aways to fill in the gaps successfully between each of the interviews in the final outcome. Next time we could improve this by planning the documentary more thoroughly and sketching out how we would like it.

-          The interviewee could be facing the camera a bit more because they look like they are looking too far away from the camera; this gives an effect where they don’t look like they are talking to the viewers. This can be changed easily by simply changing the direction the interviewees are facing.