bylinecl

Re: "Old Farts" etc.

Susan from Vermont's observation, really sums it up:
"Post processing is a tool for changing the image to conform with the photographer's vision of the scene/subject that the camera could not adequately capture! While there are many who will enhance images in an attempt to make them better, without concern for what they actually saw, there are also those who desire to have that image express not only the physical presence of the subject/scene but also the original vision of the photographer. That vision often includes the evoking of a particular response from the viewer. It is not easy to capture this in a straight out of the camera image! In this instance, post processing does change the image, but does NOT change the actual vision of what it was. Instead, post processing is intended to bring the image CLOSER to the original vision."

Post-processing on a computer is what digital photography today offers, and that offering, from my very limited understanding and level of skill, is what constitutes the bulk of contemporary photography, probably including "art photography." Especially when even film negatives can be digitally scanned and enhanced or simply printed.

"Disruptive technologies," as Leica's Irwin Puts puts it, have always operated operated without "…sentiment and historical nostalgia" and in that sense follows Art's winding historical path, which is to constantly seek new ways (and means) of expression.

Since "New" is not always comfortable, and since I'm certifiably --- both actuarially and chronologically --- in the bracket where "then" refers to a period well-over twenty-five years prior to this posting (when film and mechanical cameras were the prevailing technology), I've had to make a conscious effort to embrace the photographic future rather than let it surpass me.

So, there's your choice. Let your "old fart" language define you and impede your photography, or become a "newbie" a term that suggest that you're new and fresh, up for learning what it takes to let your interests and capacity rather than your chronology dictate your photographic, and hopefully artistic, future. cl/

kdogg Loc: Gallipolis Ferry WV

At 62 I don't consider myself an old fart, rather an elder person approaching perfection. I also learned the old school way, get as close in camera as one can and then use the darkroom to get your vision into print. PP is basically the same except now my fingers stay dry and I don't need a lightproof room to do it. I also will not miss making all those dodging and burning masks by hand. The click of a mouse is ever so convenient.

RichardQ Loc: Colorado

I believe that any Photo Course instructor who insists that a student MUST follow his/her rules is not a teacher but, rather, a censor. An ideal instructor in the art should be explaining the OPTIONS available to a photographer, without judging the merits. A few basic tenets can be helpful, but a creative student will challenge even those successfully. The main reason for a course, IMHO, is to encourage the student to think about his/her photography, not blindly duplicate the teacher's works.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

That depends on the objectives of the course. If teaching technique or specific skills then the instructor's directions should be followed, and it is entirely reasonable judge the merits of whether someone has satisfactorily met the course requirements or not. Once the class is over, whatever they wish to do is fine, especially if they have mastered the appropriate skills to an acceptable degree where they can exercise their own judgement. Art and craft are not synonymous.

Hal81 Loc: Bucks County, Pa.

Im 87 and glad to see all the new changes. And yes I to fart a lot. It seems all us old goats do that a lot. But we learned to do it sneakly and always look at the guy next to us.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

My goal/vision is to create a "natural" image, which I define as being something that will be familiar / recognizable to someone who was actually there. If a camera could not do that, I would switch cameras, but that has never been necessary

I am perfectly fine with being defined that way - as a reliable chronicler of my world. The only thing that would "impede" me would be something which caused people to distrust what I have captured.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Note: I was going to add some lines to this post above, but I've discovered that having too many subjects in one post here leads to rather chaotic threads, so I've made my separate comments into this separate post.

My photography began as an offshoot of my primary hobby as a railfan. Growing up in the 1950's/60's, I noticed that major changes were occurring in the railroad scene, so I began recording today on film before it became tomorrow and was completely different. Then I noticed this was true of most of my world, not just railroads, so I expanded my photography and its practice to all areas of my life - never knowing when something will change(*). I don't know what will happen to my images when I die - perhaps my daughters will just toss everything after a decent interval - but to the best of my ability, I am trying to be an honest chronicler of my world; I generally follow the practices established long ago by the "street photographers" and "railroad photographers", who spent virtually all their time in the field, and who knew that a reputation could be ruined by one case of modified "truth".


(*) For a poignant example of this, look at the initial sequence of "Law and Order - SVU", where they show images of New York City. They made a hurried change after 9/11/2001, but every so often someone will play a rerun of one of the first programs ... and a few moments which nonchalantly show the World Trade Center towers.

Flanners Loc: Bush Capital (Canberra) Australia

Not so (i.e. an old person) -- I'm yet to have my 70th (in about 2 months) but age itself is irrelevant -- it's how you feel in yourself that matters. As for me, my best year was when I was 29 and that's where I am now and will be forever!

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I have been a champion of progress throughout my 45 year career in education and industry. I was one of the first 3 people at Texas Instruments to "officially" have a company-sanctioned microcomputer in 1978 or 1979. It was a remarkable machine that revolutionized the way I did my daily work. No later machine or upgrade made the impact that one did. I was also one if the first 5 people to receive a brand new PC (TI called them Professional Computers) in 1981.

As an amateur radio operator, I was among a group of folks that were experimenting with practical, everyday uses of GPS and sending two-way data wirelessly and at a reasonable cost years before those functions and systems were licensed and adapted for commercial use.

Where I find that we get hung up here (and so do a lot of other folks, especially in the two current generations) is that they claim that the new developments resulting from progress completely invalidate the previous ways of doing things and demand that those old procedures be abandoned. Thing is, while that is sometimes true, many times it is not.

As an example, amateur radio operators all over the country partner with the National Weather Service to observe and report severe weather. The backbone of that operation is two way voice communication using frequency modulation on VHF frequencies. That has been a proven means of communication, immune to essentially all but the most storm-induced interference, for at least the last 50 years. Some operators augment that backbone by using an Automatic Position Reporting System (APRS), a newer technology that transmits GPS data in real time so that others can know exactly where they are located. Some even transmit basic weather observations via this system (temperature, dew point,wind speed/direction, and barometric pressure). This capability is extremely helpful, but it does not replace the eyeball to voice observations that are the reason we are out in the field during storms. I know about this. I do this.

So the thing is...my ability and desire to do extensive post processing on my images does not invalidate my colleague's desire to concentrate on the composition and exposure and produce results direct from the camera. My ability to do post processing does not invalidate a choice I might make from time to time do do the same thing...go straight from the camera.

So I think we have opportunity here to just get along and recognize that others may choose to follow a different process from ourself.

terry44 Loc: Tuolumne County California, Maui Hawaii

Tet68survivor Loc: Pomfret Center CT

Digital sure beats buying rolls and rolls of film. LOL, but not only can you adjust the photos post taking, all the digital cameras I have played with, allow you to edit somewhat at the "scene' of the crime. They are truly amazing. The other great thing about Digital cameras, is you can take as many shots of a subject that you want, and adjust your perspective on the fly. I do this a lot, my GF and I, well we shoot a thousand photos, because we can, and yes we probably toss most away. But the ones we like? They are great, and yes I need more training, but that's what this place is for. I give Digital cameras 5 stars, and UHH 6 stars on a 5 star scale. 71 here and still learning, you can teach an old dog new tricks.

zoomphoto Loc: Seattle, WA USA

"Old Fart" I inadvertently walked into one of those in a restaurant bathroom the other day. Don't light any matches!

Tet68survivor Loc: Pomfret Center CT

Yup

r.grossner Loc: Rockford IL & Sarasota FL

Digital opens up boundless capabilities. PP of raw is so much easier in digital. I used to spend hours in the darkroom trying to get a dress white while the subject was standing under a tree. Now its a couple of sliders instead of color heads or filter packs on the enlarger. AND you don't waste paper and chemicals! Now I can focus on correct exposure, depth of field ect since I have ISO to play with. BTW My D750 does well at high ISO and I am not afraid to push it abit. I still try to get my best exposure but do a lot of run and gun on "auto" like my sons wedding where I was a snapshot guy with a D750 24-120f4 which did me well and very sharp in daylight and very surprising at the reception with no flash in dim light . Ya I'm an old fart hooked on Digital. BTE This pic is a Jpeg no PP.

10MPlayer Loc: California

I'm from the old school too. I had a darkroom in my garage when I was in my late 20's. You had to get it right in the camera. You could do some light touchup with a paintbrush if you had a steady hand. You could blur the edges with Vaseline on a sheet of clear glass between the lens and the sheet of paper. You could burn and dodge. But that was about my limit.

Now, I don't do much with digital other than try to make the most accurate image of what I saw that I can but I have had times when I took a group family shot or two or three and couldn't get everyone into the shot and was able to add the missing person in. Or I was able to take several shots of the same group of people and fix the face of the person who blinked or looked away at the wrong time. Or replace a dreary gray sky with nice puffy white clouds in a landscape. Simple stuff but handy to have in your tool kit.