Speaking of YouTubers, what’s the deal with Tony Northrup? I think I watched a few videos with him in a few years back and found him a bit too smarmy for my liking, but I keep seeing him pop up on forums and the comments sections of big commercial sites. Is he a Canon ambassador or something like that? He always seems to be pushing the narrative that full frame is best and mentions Canon equipment a lot.
I think what surprises me is that he’s even bothering to trawl comments sections, where nothing productive ever seems to happen. If he’s supposed to be a big-shot YouTuber, why is he bothering to mingle with the riff-raff and get into arguments.
It’s a big red flag to me if a YouTuber is more about the gear than the art. A good photographer can take beautiful pictures with any camera, so as soon as someone starts telling me that brand X is better than brand Y, or that you need brand Z to get better photos, they’re immediately a shill in my eyes.
I’ve conversed with him a few times on some forums and he struck me as a decent guy. He’s been open minded when people disagree with him, seems to take criticism in stride and even pokes fun at himself. I just think he’s a relentless self-promoter, which you need to do if you want to make a living as a YouTuber.
Fair enough if you’ve conversed with him 1 on 1. I don’t really have anything against him personally, having never met or discussed anything with him. Self-promotion is one thing, but I find it quite off-putting when that self-promotion involves criticizing particular brands or formats and championing others. It smacks of paid sponsorship, which is usually anti-consumer in its effect.
Anyway, such is YouTube. I find myself increasingly watching the small channels rather than the big ones these days. They remind me of the old YouTube where anyone could just start recording themselves and their thoughts. They seem much more real compared to some of the channels these days which are nothing more than ads for themselves and their sponsor.
I’d also not assume that every account called “Tony Northrup” is him, I’ve seen a few obviously imposter accounts in the petapixel comments over the years. If its comments on yourtube and he’s the poster, then sure, but if its on another platform, then I wouldn’t be so sure.
Just came across this thread and scrolled down, hoping to find Martin Castein mentioned. Really liking his down-to-earth style and pragmatic advice, and that 50mm video is a good watch. He’s also not the type of typical social media narcissist like (imho) Tony Northrup.
Although… I wouldn’t put Northrup at the top of a list of photo YouTubers that I dislike the most. That honor would probably go to purely promotional, brand-affiliated channels like “Grays of Westminster”, “Matt Irwin Photography” or “Vahagraphy”, all of whom I have blocked so I never have to stumble upon their tripe ever again.
On the like-side, I sometimes watch channels like Sean Dalton for things like composition. Not that I believe it helps all that much by itself, but as a checklist of things to try and keep in mind when composing a shot, it may be helpful.
But don’t get me wrong, one can be honest and down to earth and still be irritating (I have two daughters who like to remind of that fact). He and Chelsea tend to sensationalize, play fast and loose with technical accuracy, and they like to play up controversy from time to time. Plus, Tony has a special knack for cramming two minutes of content into a half-hour video. But again, that’s the YouTube income model.
I think a lot of people getting into photography start out with folks like Tony and Ken Rockwell, and then progress to more substantial content.
I watched most of this and I think it’s a good exposition and the pictures are very pleasing. I usually try to make these kinds of compositions myself but to much worse effect.
Having said that, for some reason it struck me as I started watching it that these things make for pleasing but not very interesting photos. (Which is better than my own unpleasing but not very interesting photos.)
It’s partly just the subject matter, travel landscape with tiny figure. I do that all the time, as well. And yet I would have no interest in going to see such pictures in a gallery, say.
The only even similar landscapes I can think of, of interest would be Sebastiao Salgado’s or maybe Don McCullin’s.
I don’t think either really make or want to make beautiful photographs. They have awe or even horror about them and certainly don’t have that aesthetically pleasing perfectly placed single figure, that this video talks about.
It’s exactly the absence of that anthropomorphising figure that makes their pics unnerving. Nature doesn’t need us. Adding that figure might offer interest or a “story” but it also settles us down, lulls us, stops us asking questions.
It also elides the action of the photographer and the equipment (and processing), which is a bit of a deceit.
In landscape, Fay Godwin avoids most of these rules of composition and doesn’t disguise herself (for instance, in the pic linked she shoots the hay bale straight on, which makes the photographer’s viewpoint explicit).
Beyond landscape, the most exciting photos can be ones where the “composition” goes out the window. Just one example is “Ray’s a Laugh” by Richard Billingham. I mean the one with the flying cat in this is like WTAF is going on?
The good old “there’s no such thing as bad publicity” strategy. Yeah, I get it, but I don’t like it. I’m increasingly sick of tribalism in all areas of life, which contributes to more fragmented societies and polarization. So when I start to see “teams” forming around any topic, it gets my back up.
It’s funny, I’ve sometimes mulled starting a YouTube channel just to get out some of the thoughts swimming around my head, but I know it would probably fail in terms of views/subscribers. Not because of a lack of talent, although I wouldn’t rule that out as a reason, but because I just don’t think I would play into the algorithms and do what’s needed to promote my brand. I’m fairly allergic to clickbait, controversy and poking the bear. I have a lot of respect for some of the Darktable/FOSS contributors because some of them are doing it purely to help others and out of passion rather than to make any money.
But talking about gear probably gets them more views, especially if it is controversial.
A recent trend is “DSLRs are better”, trying to make the case that mirrorless cameras are inferior to DSLRs. Of course it is clickbait and they cannot make a serious case, but that is not the point, people apparently do click. Searching for DSLR on YT gives me results which are 70% this kind of content, and they pop up very annoyingly in the suggestions.
Another genre in photo gear is “I ditched X for Y”, which will draw in clicks from X and Y users, with plenty of comments etc that drive the algorithm.
While I didn’t particularly agree with the main argument of the video, it got me thinking some interesting thoughts.
In particular, I realized that the purpose of art is, for me, expression. I create my art because I am intrinsically compelled to express my own experience of some event or thought. Since this process is extremely personal, AI has no place in it for me.
However, I also realized that I consume art very differently, and really don’t care that much how it was created as long as I enjoy the end result. This goes both, for the character of the creator, as well as the methods they used to create.
This adds yet another wrinkle to my understanding of “the AI controversy”. It clarified that I want to focus my efforts on self improvement, e.g. practicing photography. That journey is, for me, the goal in and of itself, unrelated to whether I’ll ever be good at it or whether other people will ever consider my work as “art”. AI won’t help me with that, and therefore has no place in it. (Which is different from work, where the end result is the point, and the self improvement merely a side benefit; therefore AI tools have a place there, uncomfortable though that makes me)
I liked the distinction between art and artifice, from the book “Reclaiming Art in the Age of Artifice”, which was what I was trying to (very badly) explain in my post. AI “art” has definitely replaced artifice but It’s hard to see how it will replace art.
I agree completely. I know perfectly well why they do it, but for me that detracts from any message they pertain to have. As soon as I feel like someone is selling to me, my guard is up and I’m less interested. It’s the same when people come to my door to sell something. The cynic in me is thinking they are more interested in selling their product, whatever it is, than giving me what I need or what they truly believe in. And it’s the same with YT content.
That said, I do still watch certain content like this, but I see it as entertainment more than serious content. Some YouTubers are still enjoyable, despite the fluff they peddle.
This is an interesting point and one I need to think about more. My gut feeling is that I do care about how art is created. I appreciate inventiveness, effort, vision, originality, etc. Essentially, talent is a crucial element of my appreciation. If I like the end product, but I found out that the artist had imitated, “cheated”, grifted, etc. I would be less impressed.
But I realize that this is different from the issue of AI. It’s more about integrity.
Anyway, I will ponder this more…
The girl looking at her smartphone in a soda shop was kind of interesting in that it’s jarring and seems to accidentally comment on the rose-tinted (and white) pop image of 1950s America that’s propagated by AI slop on such devices. It sort of exposes the fakery of kitsch nostalgia that AI is drawing on and that it then supercharges. Also shows the ubiquity and normalisation of images of people looking at their phones.
I have been doing more and more B&W lately and stumbled on the Youtube channel of Pedro Leitao. It is not explicitly meant to teach about photography but I have definitely learned a lot by watching his videos.
Randomly found this channel by a softly spoken Swiss guy living in Japan. I’ve only watched a few of his videos but this one below was particularly good, I thought, as it was quite different to the usual leading lines, rule of thirds composition stuff. It’s not possible to subscribe to his channel without paying a fee (first time I’ve seen this) but you can still just click on his profile and see all his videos for no charge. He also takes some nice photos.
If I’m looking to buy I’ll read Ken Rockwell, but I’ll stick with the facts only. His reactions may or may not be worthwhile but at least he (usually) laundry-lists the details of gear in a reasonably easy to read manner. Tony and Chelsea are ok, but Tony’s over-sensational manner gets tedious after a while, at least for me.
Although it’s about movies rather than still photography, I found it really interesting. Particularly by focusing the discussion around the nature of images that create immersive experiences, and away from film vs digital or cgi vs live action. The section on depth of field in particular applies directly to photography.
I have subscribed to the channel, but haven’t seen any other videos of his yet.