Don't call my crap photo crap. IT"F FILM, DAMN IT!!!!!!!

[sleist]

A couple things up front:

1. I've never shot film when I was serious about photography. Just an old Konica and I shot it on auto (the green part of the dial ).

2. The only film I've ever "developed" were X-rays.

3. I appreciate the time and knowledge and effort that goes into shooting with, and processing film despite knowing nothing about the process.

4. This is not about anyone in particular or anyone in this forum. I belong to quite a few forums and I see this everywhere. Please see this as a general statement - I have no axe to grind.

5. Yes, maybe I'm trolling (slightly), but humor me for a minute (or more).

I see quite a few shots that I don't really consider to be very good (yes, maybe I have bad taste).
I see that the poster states prominently that the shot is "film" - perhaps even some details on how it was developed.
I wait to see the comments.
People fall all over each other with praise.
The same shot would be ripped to shreds if it were digital.
I don't get it.

I'd be more forgiving if it were Street or PJ, but extra credit for film? Why is this so? Help me understand.
A good photo is good for reasons that transcend medium, in my opinion.

Tell me why I'm wrong.

 

[amolitor]

Hey, wait until you see what they do when there's a pretty girl wearing not much clothes in the shot. All the crap about 'overexposed' and 'missed focus on the eyes' and 'I think this hideous crop would be way better' and 'you're using on camera flash, you suck' goes RIGHT out the window, and it's OOO YOU ARE SO TALENTED YOU CAN HIRE MODELS OFF MODELMAYHEM FOR TPF YOUR WORK RULEZ.

 

[Overread]

*glances at the clock - wonders if by morning this will be a 5 or a 20 page lock target*



One must remember that its not just what is said but who is talking that is important. Certain kinds of photos and certain situations will attract different people to comment upon them. The difference in the social group that comments upon a certain kind of photo (and indeed who posted it) can mean that sometimes you don't see critique rising to the foreground. Heck critique isn't everything, and there are many many photo sites where critique isn't the forefront of the photography.

In the end forums are just places were hobbyists like to gather to chat about the hobby. Sometimes that means people just, well, chat about photos rather than critiquing. Honestly its not something I've really noticed and not something I'd really worry about one bit. It might reflect that those who do film tend to be a bit more experienced these days and thus, when they post a photo its assumed that what they show is what they intended to show - this is as opposed to a green newbie who often shows, but isn't fully in control over what they are showing.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

This thread is going places

 

[pixmedic]

*glances at the clock - wonders if by morning this will be a 5 or a 20 page lock target*



One must remember that its not just what is said but who is talking that is important. Certain kinds of photos and certain situations will attract different people to comment upon them. The difference in the social group that comments upon a certain kind of photo (and indeed who posted it) can mean that sometimes you don't see critique rising to the foreground. Heck critique isn't everything, and there are many many photo sites where critique isn't the forefront of the photography.

In the end forums are just places were hobbyists like to gather to chat about the hobby. Sometimes that means people just, well, chat about photos rather than critiquing. Honestly its not something I've really noticed and not something I'd really worry about one bit. It might reflect that those who do film tend to be a bit more experienced these days and thus, when they post a photo its assumed that what they show is what they intended to show - this is as opposed to a green newbie who often shows, but isn't fully in control over what they are showing.

I miss the husky

 

[amolitor]

There is no extra credit for film, but there is a raft of extra technical detail to obsess over.

Virtually all internet forums on photography focus on technical stuff. Gear, sharpness, lenses, rules of composition, photoshop, lighting effects, etc etc. Film does add another layer of technical stuff to fuss around over. If you can lead the hounds off on the trail of Caffenol and a fixer made out of your own urine, maybe they won't complain so much about how you put the subject in the center of the frame.

 

[Derrel]

*glances at the clock - wonders if by morning this will be a 5 or a 20 page lock target*

Hilarious comment! And quite likely, methinks.

Yeah. Film. Good, old, wonderful film. A ton of utter rubbish has been shot using various films. Great films like Tri-X, HP-4, Kodachrome-X, Kodachrome II, Kodachrome 64 Professional, Ektachrome 64 and 100 Professional, Super-XX, Agfachrome, Konica, Scotch, 3M, Panatomic-X, Plus-X Pan, Verichrome Pan, VPS, Portra, Reala, Provia, Velvia, and on and on and on and on. Film made over literally decades and wildly-different eras has been used to make some of the world's WORST-EVER photos! Badly exposed! Poorly developed! Badly fixed! Washed inadequately! Dried in linty film drying cabinets! Negatives scratched by poor storage! Enlargements made in light-polluted darkrooms. Prints developed with damned near exhausted developer! Yee-haw!!! Oh...and somewhere along the way, some of the world's finest photos were shot on that nasty old film stuff! I don't care,nor am I impressed by HOW a photo was made; meaning by that, if it's good, it's good, and conversely if it sucks, it sucks, and basically the origins of photos are of little concern to me.

 

[molested_cow]

Racism of photography?

 

[2WheelPhoto]

20,000,000,000 hipsters may not agree with you, OP

 

[Derrel]

"Miller--the Champagne of Beers!"

Riiiiiiiiiiight....more like high-calorie pi$$water beer...

 

[sleist]

A ton of utter rubbish has been shot using various films.

And much more rubbish using digital, given the cost per shot (want to see a shot of my cat?). I think a lot about wasted shots and rushing due to how easy digital is to chimp, or delete, or crop ....
Please note this post is as much about the people giving C&C as it is about the shooters (maybe more?). I think they enable each other to a degree.
People are less harsh regarding the shot if it's film, so people post more marginal shots and excuse the quality by claiming the "film shooter's mulligan".

That's how it seems to me anyway.

Caffenol and a fixer made out of your own urine

Stop reading my mind! Need to buy more tinfoil ...

 

[Derrel]

Yes, I think you are right sleist--to a very significant degree, film users do often give the so-called benefit of the doubt to other film users. I used to be a member of a group called the Film Users Collective and Lens Library (aka FUCALL), and we would generally cut one another some slack when a shot had minor technical deficiencies.

 

[sleist]

It might reflect that those who do film tend to be a bit more experienced these days and thus, when they post a photo its assumed that what they show is what they intended to show

Perhaps. Kind of like how post count or number of "likes" might give someone's opinion more perceived value - which is kind of my question.
If film vs digital does not matter when evaluating a shot, why is the medium even mentioned?
Should I critique a photo differently because it's film? Does it matter? I feel like people think that it should and I'm not sure I agree.
If someone bought a film camera at a pawn shop yesterday, do they get a free pass for poor focus and composition?

 

[Overread]

Film VS Digital matters because its a part of the photo.
Technically speaking there are big differences. For starters one can suggest far more corrective methods with digital than with film because the time requirements are much lighter. A digital shooter can go in and clone, heal and do more to the photo - film photographers can do this too, but if they are working purely in the darkroom and only scanning the final result then all these operations take a lot lot more time. They can, of course, scan and then use photoshop (and a great many today do - even going as far as to scan negatives and then work on them digitally rather than in the darkroom) but not all will.

Further there are some aspects to film shooting that differ to digital - eg you can't just change your ISO on a whim with film - some cameras let you, but even then you'll be very limited by the film.

Also, as a hobbyists site and one that isn't focused purely around art knowing "how" or what was used to make something is of interest to members generally. So its part and parcel of the photo that the detail gets posted. You can of course choose not to post those details - and heck you can go pure art if you want.

 

[PhotoWrangler]

If someone bought a film camera at a pawn shop yesterday, do they get a free pass for poor focus and composition?

Why shouldn't they? People get free passes for poor focus and composition masked by photoshop actions and presets....