Observation: film photos on flickr

[hrst]

It is/was also the trend of 2000. Look at the movies and tv series. (US police shows from 2000's are especially good examples). They desaturate colors at post and get a muddy brown-grey-blue look. I never liked it a second. It seems to be over now; at least I hope so. Most of these films are shot on film (and destructed in digital post) and I think it is/was a total wasting of film. Good thing though they are keeping Kodak alive.

Anyhow, this trend can be seen clearly also in how people shoot and scan&manipulate their images on Flickr etc.

Please note that many digi shooters manipulate their images in the same way. They usually look even more dull. And note that any image on Flickr will almost automatically receive enormous number of comments like "GREAT CAPTURE!!" "NICE COLORS!!" etc. It's just flickr, don't take it too seriously :D.

"HDR" (nothing to do with dynamic range) images (shot completely digitally, always!) are a complete opposite to these dull pictures. Still, they look as awful. It's just as the dullness effect; it's interesting for a few minutes. Then it loses it power.

However, great thing with film is that there are so many options. I think that the correctly exposed colorful neg look will be back soon. It has a dynamic range of "HDR", but it doesn't look like "HDR". It has realistic, natural colors without being dull. It has contrast, but not too much. It looks automatically like a bit contrast masked (but not too much), even when it's not.

Many small (and not so small) things, like the introduction of colorful Ektar 100, make a way for the renaissance of this 1990's look. Ektar may be too unrealistic for some people, but it's not dull and that's most important. It's a message. People who make their photos dull even in 2010 are just slow. They are clinging to a trend that has come to its end. Most of people start to get bored and are looking for alternatives.

[accozzaglia]

After looking on Fuji 800Z and Provia 400X on Flickr, perhaps I'm not seeing what you're saying, B&Wpositive.

I see a few photos where there is severe overexposure, blowing out any contrast and de-saturating colour. I see some where the colours look badly skewed. I also see some that are very underexposed and hard to make out anything. I also see a couple where there was deliberately digital de-saturation implemented. In short, I see a dog's breakfast of results.

In the end, there are three considerations to allow:
1) Many film photographers are in a constant learning process, some further along than others (while some just don't progress beyond a certain point);
2) Some photographers don't hew to a notion — or an agreed one — of "traditional" methods, as you expressed;
3) Style is highly varied between different photogs — just like other artistic media — and one's saturated, underexposed, contrasty shot is another's undersaturated, overexposed, flat shot.

Personally, after seeing some of Jose Villa's work — his name is new to me — I must say that I really do not appreciate his style, one I would call "milky and washed out". But again, this is entirely a subjective call. Clearly his style resonates with the wedding client crowd, and rightly so, his formula appears to pay off. When working with colour — more specifically, when working with reversal colour — give me someone who underexposes by 1/3rd or 2/3rd stop in order to saturate colour and give shadows a rich darkness. I really don't like seeing blacks that end up being greyish and highlights which look like white crinoline was draped over the lens.

[Leighgion]

I can't say this has been my experience on Flickr, but then I have to admit I don't spend that much time looking at an extensive list of images on there. It's more just the place I can stick some of my stuff.

[perkeleellinen]

I looked at a few pages of 800Z photos and what stood out was how grainy many of them were. Even ones taken on medium format show more grain at 4"x5" on my screen than my 10"x8" optical prints from 35mm.

[marylandphoto]

It is/was also the trend of 2000. Look at the movies and tv series. (US police shows from 2000's are especially good examples). They desaturate colors at post and get a muddy brown-grey-blue look. I never liked it a second. It seems to be over now; at least I hope so. Most of these films are shot on film (and destructed in digital post) and I think it is/was a total wasting of film. Good thing though they are keeping Kodak alive.


Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!! This has plagued movies/tv shows for the longest time. Many times, the digital intermediate work they're doing on films now totally ruin it for me.

One thing I never understood about Flickr is how they decide which pictures get featured. I've seen wonderfully composed pictures on Flickr with no attention, and then some absolutely dreadful (to my eyes) images with pages of comments. As one poster said, it's almost as if people are more attracted to the "pretty colors" of photoshopped images than they are images that are striking in more ways. I've also never liked the insane amount of xprocessing and lofi...seems like it is mostly people experimenting, but hey...if they're trying out film, I'm happy!

[Tim Gray]

As one poster said, it's almost as if people are more attracted to the "pretty colors" of photoshopped images than they are images that are striking in more ways.

That helps. Pictures of girls help too. Or anything that makes a 100x100 image stand out from 30 other ones. Some people get a lot of views because they are in a ton of groups too.

My most viewed photo is a street shot of a guy sitting on the curb with his ass crack hanging out. The most frequent search term for that photo, surprise surprise, is 'ass'. I would imagine that the photo doesn't really show what the searchers want it to, but they still click.

I can't be bothered with a bunch of that stuff, so typically my pictures get few views. Even if they were good :D

[Anon Ymous]

... I've also never liked the insane amount of xprocessing and lofi...seems like it is mostly people experimenting, but hey...if they're trying out film, I'm happy!

You're not alone brother! I once tried to find pictures taken with E100G and there was a huge amount of xprocessed stuff (shot with Holgas), but only a few normal shots. All that catchy stuff... But as you say, if they use film, I can't really complain.

[mrred]

Which is exactly why I've said, and still maintain, that you cannot get a decent idea of how ANY film stacks up against another when looking at samples from Flickr or any other photo sharing site. Sure there are good examples there, but you don't run across too many of them.

Absolutlely wrong.

A note on flickr: It's not a gallery where all the greats are hung; it's the cafe down the street where evrything is game. Put it in perspective.


A great photogapher will get a great image out of anything - eggwhites, salt and toilet paper! If you want to see what the film can do, look at what the masses are actually doing with it.


I personally post images that I am working on or just some examples for a technique. Rarely finished works. Any image I show here as an example, is hosted there. If you want to judge them as art, your time not mine.....

[fschifano]

You are so completely off base with your comment that it is hardly worth a retort. I said nothing about the quality of the work on Flickr. It's not for me to judge, and honestly, I don't really care. All I am saying is that it is impossible, with any degree of certainty, determine which film was used to make a given photograph, nor to judge the relative merits/demerits, of one type of film against another based on Flickr observations. There are far too many variables involved to do that.

[jnanian]

huh? why are you talking elvish?

otnay vishelvay,
iglatinpay ...

don't want istermay ooooglegay
to ickpay upay all my igitalday-sakspay ...

[B&Wpositive]

otnay vishelvay,
iglatinpay ...

don't want istermay ooooglegay
to ickpay upay all my igitalday-sakspay ...

It's almost St. Patrick's Day. We'll give you a break this time around. ;)

[Prest_400]

You're not alone brother! I once tried to find pictures taken with E100G and there was a huge amount of xprocessed stuff (shot with Holgas), but only a few normal shots. All that catchy stuff... But as you say, if they use film, I can't really complain.
Indeed. But well, they are using film. That's money for the manufacturers, while it's not expired, of course.
It is a bit annoying when you want "Normal" examples of a film. I wanted to see Fuji sensia pictures and in 6 pages; I found less than 10 non X-pro and such stuff.

[Tim Gray]

For film examples, the best groups I've found are the "I shoot ____ film". There's one for Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji. Probably others too. Sure, you have to look at a bunch of photos to average out the extremes and get a sense of what they might be like, but it seems to work.

Scanner variability has a lot to do with it too.

[accozzaglia]

That's money for the manufacturers, while it's not expired, of course.

It's revenue for the manufacturers, regardless — just revenue realized during the past, that's all. Left-overs from the past — in-date, short-date, or expired — are a consequence of over-producing as much as a dependency upon unfocussed, but traditional distribution methodologies.

[polyglot]

lofi and cross-processing seems to be a big thing on flickr due to a bunch of people using lomos, but there are plenty of fairly straight shots if you look carefully. Hell, look me up (http://www.flickr.com/photos/24125157@N00/); I have a bunch of Velvia, Provia, Acros, Pan-F, SFX200, etc posted.

At least flickr doesn't auto-adjust your images - if you're ever foolish enough to post an image to facebook, their software will auto-level your photo and destroy it.

[El Gringo]

At least flickr doesn't auto-adjust your images - if you're ever foolish enough to post an image to facebook, their software will auto-level your photo and destroy it.

I tried that once, wondered what the hell was going on. Luckily there are applications like Flickr Tab that get around the problem.

In the past I've tried to use Flickr as a way of scouting out some locations that I know are well photographed. I think that the range of standards found from such searches just go to show that technology is both a blessing and a curse.