Hmm...changing and growing as a photographer... I would like to think that some three decades in, my vision has become more refined and my technical skills have further developed. The subject matter that interests me has, I would think, evolved. In terms of my landscape work, I find myself looking more at "details" (as irvd2x, above) and less at the sweeping vistas (although they do continue to catch my attention). Important, here, was my purchase several years ago, of a Hasselblad system, a camera that is pretty much "glued" to a tripod; working, thus, has slowed me down (when shooting medium format, at any rate) and forced me - or conditioned me - to look closer and deeper at what is before the camera. Other changes? I still do a lot of street photography and urban landscape/urban life/photojournalistic shooting with the 35mm (SLR and rangefinder), in both black and white and color. What I will now not do under any circumstances is photograph anyone's child ANYWHERE! I don't think I need to explain why, in this over-the-top, over-sensittized age in which we live.
In terms of the medium itself, most of the folks I admire now are the same people I looked up to earlier: Jay Maisel, Deborah Turberville, Pete Turner, Eddie Adams, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Brett Weston, Richard Avedon and Irving Penn; sad to say, but most of what I see today doesn't really do anything for me.
While I do shoot digital, I still prefer film, by far. While some of the digital imagery is clever, unique and well-executed, far too much of it is just so...over the top, becoming, in many instances, more a demonstration of the camera operators computer skills. There again, maybe my attitude stems from a personal preference for shooting, to doing computer post-production? lol
And, like you, Mainecoonmaniac, I do not spend a great deal of time worrying what others think of me or what I shoot, etc. Perhaps this is less a function of age a more one of predisposition?
