Why Your Photography Isn't "Content"
I’ve noticed that we’ve all started using a word that makes my skin crawl: content. We talk about "creating content," "content calendars," and "feeding the content machine." It’s a term that has quietly invaded our vocabulary, and I think it’s doing a slow, steady job of eroding why we pick up a camera in the first place.
The word "content" is a hollow vessel. It’s a term used by platforms that don't care what you’re showing them, as long as you’re filling the space between the ads. When we call our images content, we stop treating them like stories or moments or art, and we start treating them like fuel for an algorithm that is never full. Content is something you consume and discard. It’s a commodity. And if you treat your work like a commodity, eventually, you’ll start creating work that feels like one.
So, what should we call it?
I’ve started going back to calling them Images. Or Frames. Or even just Work.
An Image implies a vision, something that was seen and captured with intent. A Frame implies a boundary, the deliberate choice of what to include and what to leave out (something we talked about with symmetry). When you tell someone, "I want to show you an image I made," it carries a weight that "I have some new content" never will.
Calling your work "Content" centers the platform. Calling it your "Work" centers you.
When we share on social media, we aren't just "filling a feed." We are publishing a digital gallery. The moment we stop using the language of the algorithm and start using the language of the craft, our relationship with our own photography changes. We stop worrying about "engagement" and start worrying about "expression."
Let’s leave the "content" to the marketers. We’re photographers. Let’s start acting like it again.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO IMPROVE YOUR BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHY TRY THE LESSONS BELOW.
A Beginners Guide