During Richard Higgs's lecture it was apparent that good/successful design does not have to be produced through fundamentally technological means. The differences between successful established designers and student designers is that the latter will be less able to quickly develop visual solutions to given briefs. Generally it is the way in which you design/represent an idea that just as, if not more, significant than what the idea may be. I have been wondering why the majority of visiting lecturers have admitted to an inability to spell as it seems strange for professionals who are paid for their understanding of life/culture/communication.
It was clear during group work that lots of preparation is necessary in order for the group to work efficiently, otherwise members of the group will find themselves losing interest in the subject. Personally I have found that it is more useful when working in a group for each member to write down their own ideas/intentions before coming together to rectify any differences or problems that may arise during the development of a solution. To give an example, the production of storyboards prior to filming can be extremely useful as it sets out the designer's intentions and thus leaves no group member without something to do. Without a clear storyboard filming can become a confusing and tedious task.
Working with video cameras, digital cameras and having had a small insight into SLR cameras I have come to understand more about photography as a general area of interest in which lighting and composition play a significant role. I found most interesting the idea of Rennaissance composition - the fact that a designer should position subjects according to each third of the frame in order to gain an image which can be most easily read by the viewer's eye. It was also useful to explore the full potential of my digital camera - taking high quality photographs and using Adobe Photoshop to very slightly improve colour and clarity.
