What one sees and photographs as one gets older

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I've been photographing for well over 30 years now and what I photograph now is way different that when I was younger. As I get older, I appreciate more subtle subject matter. To some, just boring. I see a lot of the new photographers and some I really like and advances the craft and some are just too over the top for me. Especially now with easy access to Photoshop. Photoshop is just a tool and I have nothing against it. I do like the work of Maggie Taylor which is pretty much all digital. Right now, there seems to be an arms race with photographers to see who can out do each other instead of seeing at a deeper level. Am I being an old fart? My question is has your tastes changed over the years? Does being a photographer influence your tastes?

 

[irvd2x]

I have been photographing since 1971.I have found that I am photographing more details, and fewer traditionally scenic subjects.If I am at the Snake River Overlook in the Tetons,I may take as many images of details around the parking area as I do of that iconic scene.In fact...I have become less and less drawn to the Big Scenes and photograph on my daily walks more and more.a roll or two a week with the Linhof.Epic views of mundane subjects.

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 5020T using Tapatalk

 

[MartinCrabtree]

As far as p'shop and manipulations go while I appreciate the skills and effort but it's closer to painting w/a computer IMHO. You do need a keen ability to visualize,even more so than with the traditional medium. I agree with you on what I like now but it's just artists exploring the available tools. I used to do the equivalent with Kodak color IR slide film.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I have become more subtle over the years myself.

Jeff

 

[cliveh]

Definitely agree, although I would like to think my tastes are more refined rather than changed as I get older. I think when you are younger you are sometimes chasing fads of fashion and it is still true that art goes through these periods when certain types of work are more in vogue than others. I think this can be distracting and find I have an indifference to a lot of contemporary photography. When I look at the work of some of the masters of different art mediums, although they change in style through the years, the backbone of their work always seems to be one of refinement. I would sight Picasso as a good example of this. As to the question does being a photographer influence my tastes? Yes, certainly when watching films or TV, or just observing the world around me from a contemplative point of view.

 

[bsdunek]

Definitely agree, although I would like to think my tastes are more refined rather than changed as I get older. I think when you are younger you are sometimes chasing fads of fashion and it is still true that art goes through these periods when certain types of work are more in vogue than others. I think this can be distracting and find I have an indifference to a lot of contemporary photography. When I look at the work of some of the masters of different art mediums, although they change in style through the years, the backbone of their work always seems to be one of refinement. I would sight Picasso as a good example of this. As to the question does being a photographer influence my tastes? Yes, certainly when watching films or TV, or just observing the world around me from a contemplative point of view.

Well said, cliveh. Just what I was thinking.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Another observation with me getting older is not caring as much about other think of me and what I photograph. It's quite liberating.

 

[snapguy]

knickers

Actress Jodi Foster married a lady photographer and the Internet has its knickers in a twist over the love angle. I have tried to find one photograph by the new bride (or groom?) but Googoo and Yoohoo can only deliver hot-breath gossip. Their algorithms slobber over hot gossip, but no inkling of the photog lady's art. This is what I see that is symptomatic of these modern but distorted times.

 

[Lee Rust]

Here's Alexandra's website: Dead Link Removed

 

[BradleyK]

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?

 

[Jaf-Photo]

I've been photographing for well over 30 years now and what I photograph now is way different that when I was younger. As I get older, I appreciate more subtle subject matter. To some, just boring. I see a lot of the new photographers and some I really like and advances the craft and some are just too over the top for me. Especially now with easy access to Photoshop. Photoshop is just a tool and I have nothing against it. I do like the work of Maggie Taylor which is pretty much all digital. Right now, there seems to be an arms race with photographers to see who can out do each other instead of seeing at a deeper level. Am I being an old fart? My question is has your tastes changed over the years? Does being a photographer influence your tastes?

I think you are spot on.

The fact that most photographs are presented on the internet in thumbnail format, means that sublety has been lost. It's all abut maximum impact, whether it be colour, contrast or striking structure.

Many of the old school masters of photography would not have made it in the internet age. Their photos are filled with sublety which would have been lost and passed by in thumbnails.

My greatest hero of photography is Joel Meyerowitz, for his unconventional compotions and beautiful tones of light and colour. But if you compress it down to 320x240 pixels, everything is lost.

Let's not care about it, and capture whatever images we see!

 

[David Brown]

Actress Jodi Foster married a lady photographer and the Internet has its knickers in a twist over the love angle. I have tried to find one photograph by the new bride (or groom?) but Googoo and Yoohoo can only deliver hot-breath gossip. Their algorithms slobber over hot gossip, but no inkling of the photog lady's art. This is what I see that is symptomatic of these modern but distorted times.

Not to go to far off topic, but, really? When I "googled" her name (alexandra hedison), the first listing was the usual "news", but then immediately it was her website followed by the Wikipedia entry for her. You didn't try hard enough.

As to the original question, I also agree with Clive. And would add that I am becoming much more attuned to the advancement of artists. I can see how the early avant guard got to be that way (now; before I couldn't) and can much better appreciate their visions, whether or not I would put their works on my wall.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I have not aged sufficiently to think much about it. I just photograph what I like and that's it. When I look back to my beginnings I can tell I was interested in 'mood' all along, and that it's incredibly important to me to impart emotions in my photography. I want the viewer to have an emotional reaction. That has never changed. We shall see what time does to that concept.

 

[Alan Klein]

I'm still drawn to the light.

 

[cliveh]

I'm still drawn to the light.

Are you some kind of moth?

 

[DWThomas]

I've been shooting since the late 1950s and have never depended on it for a living, so I pretty much do what I want. I have noticed that I am becoming more abstract; shooting interesting details or line and shadow compositions based on some larger scene or object, but nothing encompassing the whole object. After My Faire Spouse and I returned from a trip to England we were looking at the pictures and she saw one I took of a really elaborate brick chimney where the sections around each of several flues were laid with a twist, quite a trick of the mason's art. "Where was that?" So I guess I'm unconsciously searching out those small but different details. In small time shows that I've entered around home, I've won some awards, so I figure it means something good!

The issue of abstracts is interesting -- an artist I know who was in his eighties at the time read somewhere that the older we get, the less well we do visualizing or understanding abstracts. he took that as a personal challenge and produced some fascinating pieces, maybe I'm headed the same way!

 

[Vaughn]

I'm still drawn to the light.

Big fuzzy moth here, too.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

I have not aged sufficiently to think much about it. I just photograph what I like and that's it. When I look back to my beginnings I can tell I was interested in 'mood' all along, and that it's incredibly important to me to impart emotions in my photography. I want the viewer to have an emotional reaction. That has never changed. We shall see what time does to that concept.

As a fellow Swede (supposedly) I very much respect your opinion.

But why worry about how someone else will react to your photo? Why try to please or inluence others? Why not just take the photos that influence and please you?

I believe that's what some of the most influential photographers have done.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

As a fellow Swede (supposedly) I very much respect your opinion.

But why worry about how someone else will react to your photo? Why try to please or inluence others? Why not just take the photos that influence and please you?

I believe that's what some of the most influential photographers have done.

Hejsan, fellow Swede.

I will counter your question: Why would anybody share their work at all? What is the purpose of people uploading photographs and showing them online, or try to get into galleries, museums, and private collections? It is definitely to be seen. I would say that somebody who claims they don't care what others think, and then proceeds to show their work in front of anybody who cares to look, is definitely looking to get reactions from the public that results in feedback of some sort, or a sale. It would be hypocrisy to claim you are not looking for that when you show your work.

My aim is to share what I see and feel. Not because I want to become famous doing so, I have no such aspiration. I only want people to feel things, because they are beautiful experiences to me. What's wrong with that?

 

[gone]

My tastes haven't changed, the times have. My range and skill have gotten bigger, people's appreciation of photography has gotten smaller. I totally blame it on digital and computers. Before all that, when you saw images, they were either in a gallery, a museum, a book or magazine, or on a billboard. To get the images there, you normally had to pay professionals (meaning they knew what they were doing), and the quality was accordingly good. So you saw things that grabbed your attention. They were memorable.

Now, we are literally bombarded by so many crappy images that we just zone out. The mind cannot take it all in, nor can it differentiate between good and merely sensational (catering to the senses). Before, if you needed an image, you had to pay someone to do it if you couldn't, and you got quality. Now, if you need an image, you just steal it from the internet. Maybe use it as it is, or put it into photoshop and combine it w/ other stolen images to get something for nothing. The value (meaning worth, not cost) has been removed from the image, and you get exactly what you pay for.

 

[doughowk]

I've been a serious amateur for 50+ years and find I'm less interested in travel merely to see new things to photograph. I'm not to the point of looking out my windows for subject matter, but do try to explore the area in depth to find the new (or at least a new viewpoint).

 

[BradleyK]

My tastes haven't changed, the times have. My range and skill have gotten bigger, people's appreciation of photography has gotten smaller. I totally blame it on digital and computers. Before all that, when you saw images, they were either in a gallery, a museum, a book or magazine, or on a billboard. To get the images there, you normally had to pay professionals (meaning they knew what they were doing), and the quality was accordingly good. So you saw things that grabbed your attention. They were memorable.

Now, we are literally bombarded by so many crappy images that we just zone out. The mind cannot take it all in, nor can it differentiate between good and merely sensational (catering to the senses). Before, if you needed an image, you had to pay someone to do it if you couldn't, and you got quality. Now, if you need an image, you just steal it from the internet. Maybe use it as it is, or put it into photoshop and combine it w/ other stolen images to get something for nothing. The value (meaning worth, not cost) has been removed from the image, and you get exactly what you pay for.

+1. Very sad to say, Sir(?), but you have hit the proverbial nail on the head. Nonetheless, I will continue hiking, biking, walking, talking, looking and making images until my dying breath, if for no other reason than for the immense pleasure that analogue photography has given me, and continues to give me.

 

[blockend]

I care much less about technique now.

 

[chip j]

I've been a serious amateur for 50+ years and find I'm less interested in travel merely to see new things to photograph. I'm not to the point of looking out my windows for subject matter, but do try to explore the area in depth to find the new (or at least a new viewpoint).

Yes, I've been photographing in my hometown (mostly) since 1973, and now I just see deeper w/a minimum of subject matter.

 

[darkosaric]

I only want people to feel things, because they are beautiful experiences to me. What's wrong with that?

Let me answer --> Nothing is wrong with that . This is what I want to achieve as well. We humans are social beings - it is almost impossible to detached yourself completely from other people.