Film reviews today: am I the only one disappointed?

[retina_restoration]

Lol they haven’t done any such thing. They promote themselves. That’s about it. And on top of it all everything about the naked guy is like nails on a chalk board. Enjoy.

And what have YOU contributed to the pool of public knowledge??! All I am hearing is a lot of b*tching about how bad everyone else's contributions are.

 

[gbroadbridge]

And what have YOU contributed to the pool of public knowledge??! All I am hearing is a lot of b*tching about how bad everyone else's contributions are.

In these cases, 'contribution' may be a little generous.

Self promotion more like.

It's disturbing that some cannot tell the difference.

 

[Milpool]

Well yeah what I’ve seen is poor quality on all fronts and I don’t think these people are “contributing” (?) anything. They are doing it basically to promote themselves, and I don’t need to have a competing YouTube channel of my own or list my contributions as some sort of prerequisite to calling this junk what it is. You see it differently. That is ok.

And what have YOU contributed to the pool of public knowledge??! All I am hearing is a lot of b*tching about how bad everyone else's contributions are.

 

[Milpool]

With an open mind I’d really be interested to hear you detail what is so problematic about the various YouTube reviewers recommended above. Because your comments above come across very light on insight and very heavy on judgement and therefore they read as a little conceited, which I’m sure isn’t the intention.

It’s been hashed out in more detail in other threads (this isn’t the first) and I’m not going into it yet again. It’s a minority opinion, heavy on judgement, and I think it is reasonable. Point taken though. Next time this general topic comes up I’ll stay out of it.

 

[retina_restoration]

It’s been hashed out in more detail in other threads (this isn’t the first) and I’m not going into it yet again. It’s a minority opinion, heavy on judgement, and I think it is reasonable. Point taken though. Next time this general topic comes up I’ll stay out of it.

we can only hope

 

[blee1996]

When you look at Internet content about film, you can treat it as glass half full or half empty. I tend to appreciate the things that I don't know and interesting perspective from other people. Of course there are biased and even wrong information, and we all err often.

The so-called "old farts" is not really about age, but more about a mindset. In which we believe we already know everything, we are always correct and the past is always better.

I will now shut up and get back to printing.

 

[koraks]

In these cases, 'contribution' may be a little generous.

At what point does someone's contribution become worthy of acknowledging it, or at least the attempt someone made?

 

[ChrisGalway]

I’ve been feeling a bit disappointed when looking for film reviews lately. Most of the time we see average scans that are considered good enough, and then those are compared with other average or even worse scans. Conclusions are often made based on poor examples rather than showing what the film can really do.

There are exceptions, but they are hard to find (Andrew O'Neill being an exception here).

I don’t consider myself an old fart yet,, but I remember reading photography magazines in the 1990s where film tests felt more serious and useful. Today it seems harder to find that level of quality with so many bloggers doing reviews.

Does anyone else feel the same?

What's missing in the reviews that I have viewed on YouTube is any kind of objective, scientific evaluation.

As a student of Photographic Technology (mid-1960s!) most of our B&W and colour film comparison experiments involved measuring and interpreting (via tone reproduction diagrams) D-logE curves, using test strips exposed in a calibrated colour sensitometer and hand-measured densitometry using MacBeth instruments and usually a range of processing conditions. Objective scientific/engineering stuff, done carefully, but of course it took a team of six of us many days to do a simple comparison.

All that's gone. Does any modern reviewer come close to rigorous densitometry and tone reproduction? Do they even understand any of that stuff? It's more than just the sloppiness of scanning parameters.

Of course I'm willing to believe there are knowledgeable YouTube film reviewers out there; perhaps others in this Thread might point me in their direction?

 

[koraks]

Does any modern reviewer come close to rigorous densitometry and tone reproduction?

Why would they? What's the purpose of a film 'test' or review today, in relation to the 1960s-1990s when film was the main medium of making a photo?
The industrial reality has changed - or even disappeared. What is left is about something else than engineering for the vast majority of people involved.

Judging today's film 'tests' by criteria from an past era that has basically ended is always going to yield funny results. It's like trying to understand a fairytale by applying criteria of conceptual logic to it.

 

[miha]

Judging today's film 'tests' by criteria from an past era that has basically ended is always going to yield funny results. It's like trying to understand a fairytale by applying criteria of conceptual logic to it.

 

[gbroadbridge]

Judging today's film 'tests' by criteria from an past era that has basically ended is always going to yield funny results. It's like trying to understand a fairytale by applying criteria of conceptual logic to it.

So you agree that the reviews are kinda pointless, and nothing more than self promotional entertainment activities

 

[koraks]

Huh? No. Not sure how you could read that in my words, not even in a manner of joking. That deduction is just...weird.

 

[retina_restoration]

So you agree that the reviews are kinda pointless, and nothing more than self promotional entertainment activities

Show us YOUR contributions to the pubic pool of film photography knowledge, please. Where can we view your tutorials and reviews? I mean, they must be SO much better than anything else out there, right??

It's attitudes like that that makes newcomers look at these discussions and walk away in disgust, labeling people as cranky, sour gatekeepers. Can you blame them?

 

[ChrisGalway]

Show us YOUR contributions to the pubic pool of film photography knowledge, please. Where can we view your tutorials and reviews? I mean, they must be SO much better than anything else out there, right??

It's attitudes like that that makes newcomers look at these discussions and walk away in disgust, labeling people as cranky, sour gatekeepers. Can you blame them?

Calm down! There's plenty of ways of making contribution ... no need to get personal.

 

[retina_restoration]

Calm down! There's plenty of ways of making contribution ... no need to get personal.

The only "contribution" I am hearing from a couple of these people is complaining about how every Youtube film photographer is producing useless garbage content. So pardon me if I find that offensive and unnecessary.

 

[Milpool]

Maybe retina_restoration is in fact the naked guy and we're ruining his merch sales. Otherwise the outrage and classic other other stuff, well you know. Self awareness...

Suppose someone teaches community darkroom classes on a volunteer basis. Does that count as a contribution, or as promotion of film photography, do you have to make videos? how about contributing by trying to direct newcomers to good information that will make it easy to get high quality results? Does that count? Or do you have to show people your films developed to different contrasts so that not much can be concluded?

Also, it's not all videos that suck. There are some good channels - however they tend to focus on the things that can really help people as opposed to things like poorly controlled comparisons of film grain, developers etc.

 

[Alan Townsend]

I’ve been feeling a bit disappointed when looking for film reviews lately. Most of the time we see average scans that are considered good enough, and then those are compared with other average or even worse scans. Conclusions are often made based on poor examples rather than showing what the film can really do.

We get what we paid for. Youtube is free and so called creators have freedom of speech. Old magazines cost money and had staff people writing articles for pay.

There are exceptions, but they are hard to find (Andrew O'Neill being an exception here).

I think "the naked photographer" did a good job reviewing many many films using technical criteria, but he is somewhat biased like most people. I don't care for his nakedness thing, doubting the click bait value of that name.

I don’t consider myself an old fart yet,, but I remember reading photography magazines in the 1990s where film tests felt more serious and useful. Today it seems harder to find that level of quality with so many bloggers doing reviews.

The 90's was late in the film world and not such great examples. The magazines were much better in the 1960-1980 period, but those articles were written by people getting paid money, and the mags were supported by industry and biased in that direction.

Does anyone else feel the same?

I believe today things are better in some ways. Freedom of speech is a good thing thing. Getting away from commercial bias is a good thing. I see both good and bad. I did have some trouble deciding what film to use today, and looked at lots of info online before deciding, but came out okay in the end, so things not that bad in my opinion.

 

[miha]

@Alan Townsend thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[gbroadbridge]

Huh? No. Not sure how you could read that in my words, not even in a manner of joking. That deduction is just...weird.

You're right. It seemed funny at the time. lol.
I blame too many similar threads

 

[DREW WILEY]

I thought most photo hobby magazines back in their heyday were pretty bad themselves; they paid writers poorly and were basically advertising venues anyway, even when equipment "reviews" were involved. There were a few positive exceptions.

UTube is what it is. Take things with a grain of salt; guilty until proven innocent. I've stumbled onto numerous how-to flicks that did really stupid and dangerous things, evidential of just how
incompetent and ill-informed their producers were. With the darkroom versions, ruining a roll of film or coming up with skunk of a print isn't nearly as bad as sawing off a hand or losing an eye in some idiotic DIY shop project gone wrong. Haven't seen anyone drinking the chemicals yet, at least.

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

Reviews are majorly financially incentivised. "Would your write a review of this product? We can pay you $800 once published, with photographs...". That cash-for-contra does not particularly eliminate bias, because the review is keyed to generate sales and readership, on the common working proviso that the contributor is a professional in her or her background/area of expertise. Unfortunately, having worked on two magazines, I can vouch that very few reviewers were professional in any field (but wanted to sound as such, and often raised their voices to try and prove it!), and when it comes to photography, most are asking for a pimp slap backhand for their brazen misrepresentation of product understanding review skills.

Skip reviews entirely. If you have an interest in two or three films, buy one of each. Critical to your own "review" is to expose each roll in the same conditions and record details notes of what you are doing. You have to knuckle down with this and be determined to build a cache of results that came from your work, not the work of others! When the films come back, you will compare the results to the notes you made post-exposure. If you do not do this you will not learn much about individual films, and even less about published reviews that concentrate more on lines-per-mm resolution and half-arsed snaps of poorly composed subjects (that means exposure, composition, understanding of light, focus and general appeal are all deficit in someway or another).

YouTube!? Bleugh—! Geez, people have got the absolute neck to call themselves professionals while blathering claptrap.

Come on guys, get off, get off. Grab your camera, some film, your notebook and take it seriously as an ongoing project rewarding you with well-founded knowledge (your own!).

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

In a world full of darkroom experts, there is no real need for YouTube film reviews. However, in the real world, beginners want to know what they can expect to get from a film and if their results are along the expected lines. YouTube reviews are of some help to them. And if some of the very experienced darkroom experts in this forum can make better reviews and share, it would help beginners even more.

 

[koraks]

You're right. It seemed funny at the time. lol.
I blame too many similar threads

Ah, no worries! There's indeed a couple of overarching themes that pop up left & right. Which in itself is interesting enough!