Sorry for the typo: I am 40.
Where's the damn edit button? I haven't seen it in quite a while on my phone.
Where's the damn edit button? I haven't seen it in quite a while on my phone.
George of Negative Feedback is a very popular film photographer on YouTube. His photos and advice can best be described as amateurish which keeps me from officially subscribing. I saw his video regarding the making of this series and found myself shouting at the screen several times.
He did a set of photos recently in Los Angeles that he specifically shot at golden hour that were so overexposed it negated the whole purpose of the time he shot them at. He shoots very poor photos with very valuable cameras (the latter reason is why I think people take him seriously).
At the end of the day, his channel affects my life in exactly zero ways, so more power to him if people like watching. If anything, he's bringing an awareness of film photography to those that are younger who may not have known of it otherwise, sadly.
That's the problem. His crummy results misrepresent what film can do, and the average hipster/dilletante doesn't know enough to figure this out.
Good response.you really think the photos are worse than some of the "serious" wet plate crap that I see...not to mention lots of the dog and pony pictures I see on this sight
he's a working photographer who is appealing to his generation..plain and simple
art is in the eye of the beholder...
No it isn't. I don't presume to comment on artistic merit, having little talent there myself. My point is that the work is technically incompetent - a far more basic flaw. People who see this dreck and take it as an example of film's capabilities are being misled. Please tell me how this is "good for film"?Good response.
No it isn't. I don't presume to comment on artistic merit, having little talent there myself. My point is that the work is technically incompetent - a far more basic flaw. People who see this dreck and take it as an example of film's capabilities are being misled. Please tell me how this is "good for film"?
From the few times I looked at Negative Feedback, that was my impression. My guess is he's well connected and not short of a bob or two.He shoots very poor photos with very valuable cameras (the latter reason is why I think people take him seriously).
... target consumers appreciate the just-do-it approach which outweighs any aesthetic shortcomings, and ad agency milks the backstory. In the end the only thing that matters is social media presence. Rich kids producing Lomography on a studio camera is a bigger story that grizzled pro making impeccably lit shots of hipsters.
One further possibly good result...
For some, the idea of large format may seem to be impossible for all but the experiences and well trained.
It doesn't hurt to have people aware that it is possible to try it out, and successfully get at least some images.
This isn't about the old guard, and these simple tools aren't learning.It's worth remembering that when London was in full swing in the 1960s, young guys producing large, extremely high contrast studio pictures of their fashionable friends on a 35mm camera would have given the old guard apoplexy. Bailey, Donovan and Duffy went on to have successful careers. Lets be kind and say these new guys are learning on the job.
I disagree, partly. Professional photography has always been about who you know and what circles you mix in. The higher the circle, the bigger the invoice. Cecil Beaton shot movie stars and royalty. He attended Harrow and Cambridge and his first exhibition was funded by Osbert Sitwell. His origins and his subsequent career were probably not unconnected. Patrick Lichfield (Thomas Patrick John Anson, 5th Earl of Lichfield) was the official photographer at Charles and Diana's wedding and shot the Queen's Golden Jubilee, as well as commercials. I suggest there's a link.This isn't about the old guard, and these simple tools aren't learning.
They're parasites on the a$$ of consumerism, to the denigration of a dying craft.
At what point did anyone say that those use it for commercial purpose have an obligation to always use it to its full potential?No it isn't. I don't presume to comment on artistic merit, having little talent there myself. My point is that the work is technically incompetent - a far more basic flaw. People who see this dreck and take it as an example of film's capabilities are being misled. Please tell me how this is "good for film"?
At what point did anyone say that those use it for commercial purpose have an obligation to always use it to its full potential?
They can use the film how ever they feel fit. If the photographs meet the brief or they get sufficient social media attention, mission accomplished.
I get the feeling that there are bunch of grumpy old men both here and on Petapixel, who are a bit pissed off that a couple of hacks got to shoot some $20 sheets of films, got some street cred and recognition and got paid for the privilege.
Can't find Dickie's pants to complete the outfit?But why can't I get a whole gang of people to carry around my unique camera??
But I do have some Dickies...I think...I'm sure there in the drawer somewhere...Can't find Dickie's pants to complete the outfit?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?