frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

I also took some classes years ago. They teach the basics, which still count and work on digital. Part of the class was developing, which included burning and dodging. Digital PP is the same thing, plus more. We can take a PERFECT photo, and make our better, maybe. In film you could not do more than burn and dodge. You could not make colored brighter, you couldn't take a b &w shot with just one color in it. So you see, digital can stop at the camera with a great shot........or you can go to the farm room (ours is light room) and make it look the way you want...... give our a try you might just like it.... things are always changing, some think for the better, but there are always some that don't like the changes......

It's always a matter of choice....... if yours is too stop with the photo taken, then go for it and take pictures, and more pictures.....remember, the basics will never change......

Oh yes, I'm also an old fart am proud of it. Many do not get the chance tho btw one...its just a joking way of saying I'm am older person with X years experience. 70 in my case.

StanRP Loc: Ontario Canada

I have just got wind of your reply: The description 'Old Fart" has different meanings according to where it is used. Here the meaning is "An elderly person who holds old-fashioned views". It seem that if the comment "I was taught to attempt to have all of my photos complete in the camera qualifies as "old fashioned" and if this comment was made by an elderly person - then they would qualify to say that they are an "old Fart".

Also, from some of the comments - it seems that these kind of people are phew and Fart between.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

I do find the whole reluctance to use new technology a bit confusing. Throughout history artists have been on the cutting edge in the adoption of new technology. Photography itself was a new technology. When a new pigment was discovered painters would be inspired to develop whole new schools. Cinema has been, in many ways, the application of new technologies to story telling. Look at animation. Each new animated feature relies on the exploitation of a new advancement.

The "get it right in the camera and then stop" theory flies in the face of the entire history of art.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

as an old fart who's skill and technique is not that great. digital shooting ad p.p. keep me in the game.

Galahad

You are not really old compared to me , 95 in a few weeks, and still enjoying photography and the community of fellow photographers that I met with this week at the annual meeting of the Professional Photographers of NC

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

And when it is displayed on an electronic device, it is displayed as an analog image. That's because the brightness of the pixel is converted from the digital value in the image file (JPEG, TIFF, etc.) into an analog brightness level between black and the maximum output of the device.

The same logic applies to a printed image. The light falling on the print is either absorbed by the paper base or reflected (your maximum white) or by the ink/silver in the print up to the maximum possible black. That's not digital. The eye sees it as analog.

ditdit

From one old fart to another, my first Cameron was a Rolleiflex, about 65 years ago!

TheDman Loc: USA

“Anyone who stops learning is old, whether at twenty or eighty. Anyone who keeps learning stays young.” – Henry Ford

TheDman Loc: USA

Excellent! Hope to be you someday.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

Four pages when I started reading this. Seven when I was done. Does this make me an old fart?

blackest Loc: Ireland

Getting it right in camera, doesn't mean no post processing. E.g to keep detail in the sky will often leave the subject under exposed or the shadow detail near black. You can compress highlights and raise shadows in post processing as long as you recorded the detail in post processing. If you didn't capture the detail there is no bringing it back.

When the scene has limited dynamic range then little work is needed in post.

Of course the charge at the sensor is analog in value. but its digital in area, a single pixel site has just one charge and the charge thats recorded has a limited accuracy. Film is truly analog it does have distinct crystals but there are many molecules within that crystal and it's possible in fact likely not every molecule has changed state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_halide.

To be technically correct Film is an analog recording of light and digital is a digital recording of light. with digital cameras there is no analog record created.

The analog record can be digitized (subject to damage and decay) at a wide range of resolutions. The digital record can never be recorded at a higher resolution than it was created. Simply the question is there an analog record created when the photo is taken? the answer yes means its analog and no means its digital. Maybe it's different in some parts of Alaska.

rvharvey Loc: Southern New Jersey

Between 2000-2001 I showed a multi media slide show in Europe to over 60 audiences averaging 200-300 about that which is unique to America. The show was completely computerized using hard disc recording for speech, music and sound effects, four computer-driven German Ektapro slide projectors and a 3M video projector for interspersed videos. The projectors were driven by inaudible code hidden in the CD sound tracks via fiber-optic cable. It covered aspects of America that many citizens are unfamiliar with, like the Intracoastal Waterway, making maple syrup, forests in the most densely populated state and honey/pollinating bee farms with 5,000-10,000 colonies. The videos were digital but the 960 pictures were 35mm photographic slides. Five years ago I lamented to a photographer friend that my $10,000 investment in this "state of the art" equipment of the 90s, was no longer saleable because nobody uses slides today. Last year I sold just two Ektapro projectors for $750 each to a museum in Jerusalem and another museum in Egypt wants two more (I still have four). For photographic exhibits that are designed to show the talents of photographers, slides are required and quality projectors are getting rare! A number of American museums are doing the same. It is too easy to edit digital images. I have digitalized some of my 20,000+ slides but the quality of images in PowerPoint presentations leaves much to be desired when blown up on a big screen.
Ralph
www.rvharvey.com/ektapro.htm

toxdoc42

I am afraid none of us will ever know what was in Adam's mind at the time. He shot on large format film and, from the results, sought the precisely correct exposure, then spent hours producing the sharpest images. Those who have seen his negatives remark on their perfections and his ability to produce perfect prints. As a regular visited to NY's museums and their many photo exhibits, that is the case with the classic photographers even back before dagueere. I am not knocking the new trend, just remarking on how photography has changed into more of computer Art rather than classic photography.

I am sure the scribes of the middle ages felt similarly when movable type was introduced.

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

From another old fart! I even call my National Park Pass the "Old Fart Pass." But in response to the original question I agree with most of the posts. It's really good to know your camera and to compose pictures you like but digital has changed the game for the final product--not necessarily better but different.

Analogy: Think of typewriters (since there are so many old farts in this forum I expect you will remember them). You couldn't make one mistake or you'd have to start over again. You had to think in a linear manner and organize your writing before you typed and your paragraph structure had to make sense. With word processing you no longer have to think in a linear manner and you can get down all your thoughts and then arrange them in the order that makes sense to you. Both have their advantages--typing was a good mental discipline and word processing brought out your creativity. Same with film and digital photography.

For my style of photography which involves shooting on the fly the digital format is best. I try not to over zoom my pics so I can PP them later to show just what I want. Still, if I didn't have a firm background in film and having to get exposure etc. right the first time as well as knowing my camera I wouldn't even be close to having anything to work with PP. For others who like pictures that give you time to set it up I would expect getting the best shot in the camera the way to go. But you should endorse the parts of digital that will help you and be glad you understand the fundamentals you learned during all those years you were becoming an old fart.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

He manipulated far more than just manipulating the image while printing - he also manipulated negative developing - formula, concentration, temperature and time to get the highlights and shadows as good as he could. He (as were many of his contemporaries) was quite masterful at expanding and contracting the tonal range of a negative, and used a water bath method to interrupt development. He would stop development by immersing the negative in a water bath, but the action worked differently on highlights (dark areas on the negative) and shadows (thin areas). The gelatin emulsion would swell equally with developer when in the development tank, but when placed in the tank containing plain water, development would stop fairly quickly on the densest areas where the developer would become exhausted, but would continue on the thinner areas allowing the developer in the emulsion to work over a longer period of time without the risk of blocking up the highlights. The end result was a negative with a broader range of tonality with great detail in the highlights as well as the shadows. This was easy to do with sheet film.