I got a link. “Dan, you are going to love this.” And then I saw the title “X…on film.” The name of what was “on film,” will remain mysterious as it would be far too easy to find the film I am referring to, and my goal isn’t to hurt someone’s feelings. My goal is to make you think. When I see anything listed as “on film,” I always wonder one thing. Why? Why is the means mentioned in the story other than it attracts fellow film users. Maybe that is enough now, maybe the traffic born from “on film,” is the entire goal because when you look at the actual work being produced, well, it leaves a lot to desired.
When I seem films “on film,” the film itself is always better than the actual film being showcased. There are snappy titles and transitions, great sound, beautiful color grading and all the right cuts and chops and spins and twirls. But when the films slow and the stills are shown I always find myself saying “That’s it?” Landscapes, old buildings, random street, cars on street, someone at a cafe, sunset, sunrise, a twilight carnival. I know you know what I am referring to. Content.
These films remind me how lucky I am. I went to photography school. Photography school itself is a widely misunderstood endeavor in the DIY, learn via Youtube, modern era. Many people associate photography school with the technical side of photography. Wow, four years learning f-stops and shutter speeds. Who needs that? I have tons of followers, so I must be really good. And my comment section tells me how great I am. “Sick capture.”
Let me hit the reset button. My degree in photojournalism was a four-year degree, but the entire extent of technical learning was reserved for the first two weeks. Two weeks. That’s it. And it went something like this. Wet darkroom, 4×5, newspaper deadline processing and printing, color transparency. Done.
The rest of the years were spent in LEARNING about photography, photo-history, and perhaps most importantly, learning context in regard to what’s good and what’s not. The rest of the time was also about being on assignment, working with deadlines and being under pressure. At the center of this last nugget is the critique. And this is where these “on film” photographers would be greatly served.
Get feedback that matters.
A critique is basically you putting your work on a wall in front of both faculty and your peers. Remember the film school scene in the movie “The Doors?” Morrison shows his film and his fellow students say “You suck, the film sucks, that’s the worst thing I’ve ever seen.” And then his future bandmate leans forward says something along the lines of “gutsy film man.” Ya, critique can be kind of like that.
But here is where good faculty comes in. The faculty steers the critique back to the truth of what lives or dies on that wall. For me, both positive and negative criticism come with the feeling of a bee sting. Shoot, edit, sequence, make darkroom prints then tack them on the wall and wait for the feeling of those tiny legs on your arm.
The faculty has both training and context because they know their history and have been looking at good and bad photography for decades. And they know all the tricks. Remember, a roll of E6 plus processing was more than a meal at Uncle Han’s Kitchen. So, when hungry enough I could convince myself that my already exposed film had some hidden treasure I could resurrect and pawn off as a good image. That way I could enjoy that delicious egg roll. The faculty was there to ask “How hungry were you?” Followed by “This isn’t there yet.”
“This isn’t there yet.” That statement was the key to the ENTIRE photography education system.
Also remember, this was decades before the “Snowflake Generations,” of today that can’t seem to handle confrontational feedback. The term “snowflake generation” was one of Collins English Dictionary‘s 2016 words of the year. Collins defines the term as “the young adults of the 2010s, viewed as being less resilient and more prone to taking offense than previous generations”
There were plenty of times the feedback came in violent fashion, especially when one moved outside the education system and into the real-world of working photographers. “If you don’t get this picture, don’t bother coming back,” came across my pager more than once. “I don’t care about you or your stories,” an old editor spit into my face as I tried to get my first internship. Another photographer threw a bag of gear at my head. It goes on and on and on. We either grew thick skin or we left the business. And ultimately, I don’t fault these folks, not at all. Why? Because they were attempting to do something impossible in the age of “good enough.” They were attempting to maintain a certain level of quality. (They failed.)
The Internet killed that idea. And then social media peed on the grave. But the critique remains one of the only things we have left to combat the malaise of the content world. I’m amazed how many young photographers I meet who have never had their work examined by someone with knowledge of photography and photo history. Internet comments don’t serve as a meaningful sounding board. Post something direct and face the ban, the block, the castigation.
So when I see these “on film” films I consistently find myself thinking “This work would have been culled out during the first critique session.” It’s not to say the work wouldn’t lead to something else, something better. Most likely, it would have, but presenting the first take as the final product only diminishes the impact of photography in general. As does Instagram, but that’s not stopping anyone. Also, focusing on the technique of “on film” perpetuates one reality that has held photography back since its inception. “Photographers are just a bunch of geeks.” We’ve all heard the cliche about “Nobody talks about what paint a painter uses.” Well, it’s true. So why do we continue to do it?
Albania on the Fuji XH2? Why on Earth would I do that? Especially considering that most Americans seem to think Albania is in Russia. There are MUCH larger fish to fry than what medium I used to make the pictures. And speaking of Albania, I’m there to teach, so my personal work isn’t top of the list. The ONLY reason I’ll show what I produce is because I can use the work to help others learn about self-publishing.
Getting your work critiqued isn’t that difficult. Numerous organizations hold portfolio reviews throughout the year. You can also do this online. I entered a Lensculture contest a few years back just to see what the review was like. It was legit. Seriously legit. The person who reviewed my work and provided feedback was a high-level professional who drilled down and didn’t pull punches. But my guess is that a lot of folks don’t want to know the quality of their work. Why “suffer” when you can just bask in the glow of online comments. Why learn your work is derivative or a flat out copy of someone who already exists? That might suck.
All of us want to be original. Few of us are. Few of us ever will be. (I’m not in case you were wondering.) But there are ways to better understand the level of what we produce. Knowing where we are, knowing what’s good or bad, is how we ultimately protect what’s left of photography. I’ve had some of the most memorable moments of my entire photographic life at reviews. Real breakthroughs. Real insight that showed me my own work in ways I would have never seen on my own. Don’t be afraid. Just watch Gallipoli and know that at some point you have to leave the trench.
Comments 35
This all started when we gave out participation trophies etc. I did a lens culture contest years ago and their critiques were in depth and spot on. I learned a whole lot!
Author
YEs, they are so solid.
Very well written and true. Better to focus on the print, book, zine , etc
Author
Print scares a lot of people. And it’s slow and expensive.
I think I saw that movie, it’s mostly a « look how cool I am » movie, like the ones where you see a photographer jump down from a helicopter and think « what a great job », then you realize you also are a photographer and most of what you do is photographing drunk people at corporate parties (which I have a ton of fun doing, don’t misunderstand me, but I have been in a helicopter exactly once since I started 12 years ago, and it was mostly a mistake). The thing is, while being a photographer is cool, showing good photography is not. Well it is, but it is less important than the title of being a photographer. Try saying « I’m a photographer » to a non photographer, and watch them turning from « so cool » to « meh » as soon as you start showing work to them. People are interested in the lifestyle, not the sweat it takes to be more than a model holding a camera directing people.
Author
This film was about a guy who seemed pretty mello. And again, the film was great. The images were photo-school first edit outtakes, but at some point if this guy can take some of that filmmaking talent and apply to his stills he will have something. But then again, this film had mad traffic and hundreds of comments praising the effort. What do I know?
OK wow I just found another video “X on film” from a different guy, that’s even worse than the one I was referring to. Guess this is the one you’re talking about (or there’s a nest that deserves a kicking).
Author
I think they are all bad. Not bad as in hurting people, just bad in the sense of not offering anything valuable.
This is a bit like ranting at the Real Housewives of Wherever because they’re not, y’know, *real* housewives.
Let the guy have his fun. He’s playing the game and he’s one of the very best at it.
Author
Who? This guy was an average photographer at best. His film was filled with photo school, first edit outtakes. Promoted simply because they were made with film. Yawn.
Self teaching is fun, we have access to so much ressources these days. No one has any excuses not to learn anything. But one shouldn’t mistaken the learn “insert trade here” in 12 minutes videos for a degree. I’m self thought, I enjoy what I do, what I do probably sucks now and will most likely never “be there yet”. But that’s how it should be, it’s all for me. Pros can laugh, my mom can say I’m talented, it’s fine if my wife doesn’t care and my daughter can say “yuck, black and white is so ugly”. It’s all good to me. Maybe I should try film, my mother in law would be impress, she calls me everytime she sees an old film camera in a garage sale.
Author
My family has zero interest in my work either. Never have. But, that’s okay. Photography is a strange pursuit.
Thanks for this, Dan. I just graduated with a photojournalism degree 3 weeks ago and this topic has been on my mind a lot lately. I constantly see social media ‘photography’ posts and the comments are 99% “WOW SO GOOD.” and pretty much every time its an image that has been made a billion times. I guess it’s just a little disappointing to me that so many people in this space do not know the difference between a pretty picture, and a good picture.
Author
Its’ about content and following. Photography is most often an afterthought.
Even though I would have loved to become a photographer by trade, travel, document and show the world through my lens I came to accept that my life took a different path. I tell myself it‘s because I discovered my passion for photography „too late“ if there is such a thing.
I earn my money with black and white pictures, but within the world of medicine. And that still let‘s me enjoy my hobby photography since I don‘t depend on it.
Still getting feedback should go beyond the typical family members‘ pad on the shoulder. Instagram is an easy – yet pretty much worthless – option and by using film hashtags I just reach more people. The algorithm is like a first attempt to beat the final boss at Super Mario Land on Game Boy in 1990. Except in the game of online photography and recognition the Princess Peach won‘t be saved.
Author
God, I played that Game Boy and then couldn’t sleep. At all. It ruined me. So I bought one for my mom. She went down the rabbit hole. LIke a junky on pay day.
Dan, I hear you… but do ‘they’?
It feels like you’re in a tightly packed conference hall and ‘coffee time’ the room is filled with banal conversations of MkIII..XT23.. M12..full frame..AI in photoshop . You mutter Larry Towel…Robert Adams…foreground-mid ground..but no one hears, nobody knows.
Just look at the ‘photographers’ that have the biggest following. Their photography, on the whole appeals to those who wish to emulate their online heroes. You alluded to this in your piece. “ sick capture.” More appropriate would be “ nauseating capture.” Juxtaposed turns the quote on its head.
I think we have to realise that these online purveyors of pulp are purely using photography as a vehicle for turning in a YouTube payday. It’s a shame that they seem to make the most noise. … but you know what they say about empty vessels!
Despite my negativity around the dumbing down of photography, it’s important that it is called out. The internet has many positives and that should be recognised, but equally the banality and suppression of creativity should be arrested and held to account. Keep up your observations and continue to so eloquently describe failings of purveyors of pulp.
Author
Yep, content and following are what drive the online world. On on hand, it’s great. Lets anyone in. The industry does not as the gatekeepers are still there and can see through the charade rather quickly.
But still just one man’s opinion, right? And there’s the rub. You reach a certain age, and believe me I know the territory, that these opinions start to sound like “get off my lawn”. I keep my online universe to small fish small pond, so I really don’t know what all is out there and don’t care much. I have submitted stuff in the past, Lensculture included, and the photography gatekeepers generally don’t like what I do. From my limited experience in that world, there is a content bias to what the portfolio reviewers find good, as well as an economic bias. Most of them have become stupidly expensive. After doing this a few times I came to the realization that I had gotten the exact feedback I needed. Why do I want to create images according to someone else’s standards. To me it’s no different than the mimicry of the online banality that apparently permeates the social media feeds. I’m not a real photographer because I don’t have a red dot on my camera, or my images aren’t tack sharp, my sensor’s not big enough or whatever BS gets sold as “real” photography. I am thankful I never had a photography “education”, because it at least frees me from those conditioned biases when I walk out the door with a camera. I don’t want to think about much with a camera in my hand, I don’t want to look, I just want to see. I don’t want to be “there”.
Author
Man, we must be talking about two different educations. There was ZERO bias coming out of PJ school. I don’t think there was time for bias. This was like being on speed for four years. And everyone was working on something different, so you had maybe thirty students doing thirty different things in thirty different ways. Many of us headed toward the newspaper world where if you showed a major bias you just wouldn’t get hired. This is also where the good editors came into play. If you did something that showed your personal hand they would remind you that your job was elsewhere. Subtle at first and then you would be gone. To your point, however, maybe those days are behind us. Most mainstream media outlets seem to want us to know they political views. Theatre for profit, really. I feel entirely fortunate to have had the photo-education I had. And remember, the photo part was in the background. It was the journalism, the anthropology classes, all of it. And as for one man’s opinion, no, that’s not accurate. It’s an entire legion of people spouting the same thing. Average work being hailed as great work because it was made with film. I’m just pointing that out. In the long run, it’s photography that suffers.
I don’t go on YouTube that often anymore. I hate the site itself. I also need to unfollow a ton of people. That’s not really related to your post, though. For good or for ill (in the sense of can it actually be done) – I think people are mainly looking for good stories, connections, and online communities. I don’t think “great shots” necessarily translates into “these should be hanging on the walls of an art museum”.
Author
I think the creators are looking for fame and following which means revenue so they will do whatever it takes to success. I think this is why so many YT stars end up with mental health issues.
Largely agree with what you’ve said. I think it’s worth diving into the idea of gatekeeping (curating) that above commenter Chuck has noted. A great read on the topic of curation is The Revolution is Will Not Be Curated by Thomas Frank (https://thebaffler.com/salvos/revolution-not-curated-frank). The art world has always been always been so far up its own ass that it’s (literally) nauseating.
Regarding film, I recently skimmed a video from a very prominent YouTuber (perhaps the most prominent), and it was about film. He was out with a buddy and commented about how they wouldn’t have noticed this particular scene/object if they were holding their digital cameras. I thought it was a strange but telling comment. Most film photography seems to be about the same subjects; it’s mostly about aesthetic and not the story (heck, you can say this about photography in general. But film seems to be the biggest culprit). The object in question was an old van that was remarkably ordinary (as was the subsequent photo). The rest of the video had them visiting a photo lab and talking about gear. I’m sure they drank Pabst after.
Film’s revival has felt more about a hipster aesthetic than the actual photographs – like a fashion accessory completing ones look. Film is neat, don’t get me wrong. I have an old Pentax sitting around I inherited from my mother. I’ll dive in one day, but I promise not to take photos of vintage cars and scenes of Americana at dusk.
Author
Ah, but gatekeeping and curating are two very, very different things. And remember, while a total pain in the ass at times, those gatekeepers also work in our favor by weeding out the folks that aren’t ready to play on Sunday. Sure, they can form clicks and keep out certain people for sport, but the good ones also look at your work and say “Hey, you aren’t there yet but keep working and you might be.” I don’t think there’s a hipster on the planet who ever had an original idea. I think the entire hipster culture is based on appropriation, so their films aren’t that shocking or interesting because they are walking the same ground that was walked before, only better in most cases. It’s like looking at another clone of Cape Light and thinking “Don’t you know that Joel already did that?”
Spot on. Nice post. Sadly I’m a contributor to the low brow content on YouTube. Perhaps I should change that …. But then nobody follows and it almost feels like an echo chamber. Oh well… maybe doing it the right way as I grow in my photography skills is the better option.
Author
As long as it makes you happy or teaches you something then go for it.
DM, I meant to comment on this when I first read it, and then of course my day job got in the way for almost a month. Something about this post makes me uneasy. Although I tend to agree with all of your points and it is well written (as usual). I guess my uneasiness is the result of your attack on the “on film” moniker. There are a lot of messages in here that you have rightly preached about: The camera is just a tool; no pro talks about what gear they used to make a photo; if you are going to do something that’s already been done, you better damned will make sure you have fresh take on it — It’s one thing to make an homage to a particular artist, its another thing to simply try to copy a photo made by someone else; and finally, that the Algorithms have made all content uniform. (It reminds me of Pink Floyd’s “The Wall” — Album and movie) — “All in all we are all just bricks in the Wall…”
I guess what is kind of a gut punch to me (as primarily an analog photographer) is the idea that somehow the using the phrase “on film” is synonymous with poor unimaginative work. Don’t get me wrong, the “on film” or “analog” community is full of people who believe that anything shot on film is spectacular and anything shot any other way is garbage. Of course, those same people do not recognize the hypocrisy of touting their online work as “shot on film” and therefore superior. How could anyone evaluate a photo shot on film on the internet? Only one way, the negative or slide was scanned digitally, post-processed and then “shared.” At that point the only difference in the work is to identify whether the person was competent at transferring the image online, not what medium it was shot on.
I guess my point is, unless someone is darkroom printing their work, and then taking a digital photograph of the print and posting that on the internet, the fact that an image is shot on film is of little or no relevance to whether it is good (and I understand this is your point), however, the same can be said for every single person claiming to be a photographer with a digital camera. Composition, lighting, exposure, editing, printing, etc., is all fine and well, but if the subject is boring, like a long empty highway at sunset, what good are your technical capabilities, whether executed on film or digitally?
Author
Hey D,
“On film” actually IS synonymous with average to subpar work. It’s a consumer term coined by consumer photographers who primarily work in derivative form shooting what they have already seen. Sand dunes, old houses, old cars, urban abstract landscape. Companies like Kodak do little more than promote this work which makes it even worse. They should know better but my guess is there aren’t many people left at Kodak who know what good photography is. Focusing on the materials is a strange move any way you dress it. Like me saying “Albania on the XH2.” Why on Earth would I do that? Well, if the work sucks then you can at least talk about the camera which is what a huge percentage of amateurs want to know about anyway. Or “Albania on 200x SD cards.” I don’t see the difference. The film world is consumed by the consumer/prosumer snappers in the world. They do the “on film” thing because their audience eats it up. They prove every day that the quality of the work matters not. It’s just about “on film.” I’m sure they are happy promoting this idea. It gets views and that’s pretty much the only thing anyone seems to care about these days.
Ok, so I guess my question is does the term “on film” apply equally to digital photogs who turn in equally average or subpar work? The part that’s stuck in my throat, is that when I’m out shooting or shooting an event with an antique (let’s be honest all film cameras are antiques) camera and someone asks me if that’s a film camera, I say yes. Of If someone who knows me wants a print of particular photo and I give it to them, they might ask: “did you shoot that on film?” My point is that people who know me or see me shooting, know that I use film. I do not promote it that way, but on the flip side, I’m not going to say: “does it really matter?” Instead I just answer the question. I mean the dictionary definition of photography is, after all: “the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor).” Therefore, neither a painting nor an AI generated image is a “photograph,” since neither produces an image by the action of light on a sensitive surface. (Even if Vermeer used a camera obscura to project a scene from his window to a wall or canvas, he still had to “paint” it, since neither his wall nor his canvas was covered in photosensitive emulsion.)
So my struggle is with the syntax, in other words, “on film” as a “slur” applies equally to any photograph. Why does the lexicon use that phrase as opposed to “on my iPhone” or “on my Pixel,” to delineate poor work? Merely as a jab at those who used that phrase as something that should automatically make the work more revered because it was shot on film? We should all be less worried about about whether it was shot “on film” or “on sensor” as opposed to whether it was even “shot” at all, or came out of the mind and imagination of someone with good prompting skills and DALLE-2 or Midjourney or Bard, etc.
Author
I don’t know anyone who shoots digital, subpar work or high level work, and then promotes it as “on digital.” I’m sure they are out there but I don’t see it. Whereas with film I see it all the time. In fact, it defines the most popular film users in the world, many of whom shoot nothing but average, derivative work. I feel the same about people who promote themselves as “iPhone only photographers.” Good for you, but nobody cares. Nobody. That ship sailed in 1997 with the first photobook make via mobile phone. Why don’t basketball players make baskets and yell “Yes, made with Spaulding.” Why? Because it makes no sense. The only people who care about “on film” are consumer photographers. The good news for “on film” folks is that there are a TON of consumer photographers.
So here is my last comment/question before your class tonight (I am BEHIND in the homework already!), I think we both agree that regardless of the medium, film, digital, tin type, etc., there are people who make subpar in all of those mediums. To boil it down, either you make good work or not, the medium is irrelevant. Just because you label your work “on film,” doesn’t suddenly make it the work of HCB, right? My gut tells me those people who label their work “on film” believe that doing so will forgive a myriad of flaws/problems in their work. Like: “of course the focus is soft, its shot on film.”
My final question is this, do you think there is any value in identifying work online as “on film” in order to favorably influence companies that make film, like the Big Yellow Overlord, into making more and better film? Or is the only metric they utilize “sales,” and as such, if film sales are up, they continue to produce and vice versa?
Author
Yes, I think the “on film” thing is working, at least to some degree. But these companies are having real issues with expanding their film production. It ain’t easy or inexpensive. So, I’m not sure what will happen in the long run. And the label “on film” is the ONLY thing keeping much of this work in the spotlight because most of that work is so repetitive and expected. It looks like first year photo student work. Again, everyone has to start somewhere and if shooting film is the key aspect in someone getting out to shoot, well, then I say “all good.”
Now, if I could just finish that homework…
Author
DO IT
Now about that homework….