style!

hmmm 'Style'...
Don't think about it ...Just Shoot
Shoot what catches your 'Eye' & Makes your 'Heart' beat faster

Eventually their will be a link...a pattern ...a 'Style'
 
back alley said:
i do think that i have a style...i'm not able to really describe it but i know that no matter the camera my images are mine and i think recognizable. ........................
Click to expand...

Joe: I looked at your blog and came up with a few thoughts. Feel free to disagree but please remember these are just my attempt to be constructive so do not be offended.

Try to work on some sort of project where there is some consistency in your work and the message you are trying to deliver. It can be the interplay of light and shadow, the use of color, or something about the people who exhibit at the weekend market. While the theme can shift over time, there must be one there.

Think in terms of a body of work comprised on 10 to 30 images rather than a collection of singular images. This will mean leaving out a lot of photos that are good but will cause you to identify the very best. It is yet another step in the editing process, maybe the hardest.

Only then will your style begin to emerge. And you will find yourself adapting your style to one that is most fitting what you want.
 
IMO, there is no one correct way to go about this. Some people are analytical, others are intuitive types. It would drive an analytical person nuts to tell them to go with their gut, and drive an intuitive person nuts to tell them to deconstruct and analyse pictures in order to develop a style.

I'm the type to agree with Helen to not consciously dwell on it. Everything you shoot is done in your style. Just be yourself, be true to yourself, shoot what you enjoy shooting. There is a natural inclination to improve.
 
Try creating a photobook. It's not as easy as some would believe.

When you have to go through your bad photos and choose 50-60 of them, you'll realize quickly if not your style, your tendencies.
 
How much of our style comes from the work we do in post processing? For me, I think it is at least 50/50. Of course, that may just mean I am a crappy photographer!
 
Joe

I think 'shadowfox' (Wil) has a good idea - I was going to suggest the same.
Make a 'Blurb' book. Just trying to select two photos to go on facing pages will tell you a lot about those photos. Perhaps look through for photos that are taken within half a mile from where you live - will they go together to represent that area? What is missing? Who is missing?
And as for that 'wow' factor - I know just what you mean. Perhaps we expect to take photos with it all the time - if so we are deluding ourselves. Perhaps we never see the 'wow' feature in our own photos only in another's.

jesse
 
Style: you can't learn it and you certainly never think about it... style just happens.

Style is the opposite of technique, although the two are closely related.
 
I just happen to discover something about photography. I was shooting last 6 months what I like on street. Many were deleted. Some did not. And when I look at that 100+ photos I did find that in all of them there is a catch, a glimpse , an eye contact or a contradiction. It was not meant. It seams that my sub conscience works. So in long term , a style is obviously a reflection of personality.
 
I don't think style just happens for most. The comment above shaddowfox I think about organizing a book or putting together a portfolio or setting up an exhibit will show you things about your work because to put 50 images that in some way relate and then to introduce a flow to the work becomes a great way to show you things about yourself and your images. Editing is just as important as shooting. What you decide to leave out is as important as what you show.
And what you show is usually a post problem/solution and what you show because you are seeing visual connections in the work that will help develop a style.
Heres a great piece about Robert Franks "The Americans".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHtRZBDOgag
 
Joe, I think part of the issue is your subject matter. You like noirish images, but you are shooting a lot in strong light, and your locations are not supportive of that vision.

Your moniker indicates where you need to be. Get away from the light. You live in Edmonton, yes? I visited there once, I remember there being lots of 'back alleys' to explore.

Also, try hanging out in dives. One advantage of advancing years is that you fit right in at such places. ;-(

Randy
 
joe, my suggestion is to choice a subject of interest, not far from where you live. And try to work on it in different way. For a couple of week shooting as usual. next couple of week try to shoot the same theme with a different technique, or in a very different daytime without worrying too much about the result. Than again make a substantial change like force yourself to use only long shutter speed handheld. Repeat the exercise a few times, than select and print 5-6 photo for each session and hang anywhere in your home for a few days. In these way you can discover which kind of style you like more and try to develop a more complete body of work in that way. Just my 2 cents...
robert
 
If you intently seek style, your photos will never have style.
If you intently seek to make photos that satisfy you, your photos will develop a style.

See something in someone else's work that you like? Try to do it. Then judge whether you like the photos you made. Modify until you like what you make.

Don't seek a style. Seek to create photos that make you smile.

G
 
My advice also is to not confuse style with technique. Weston had a style. Whatever equipment or techniques he used it still looks like a Weston. His peppers looked like his shells which looked like his clouds which looked like nudes which looked like his peppers.
A great quote by Roy DeCarava:
"You should be able to look at me and see my work. You should be able to look at my work and see me." - Roy DeCarava

Minor White:
"...all photographs are selfportraits." - Minor White

Weston:
"We feel the personality of the photographer as clearly as that of the painter, draughtsman, or printmaker. Actually, camera and darkroom manipulations are a technique, like oil, pencil, or watercolor; and, above all, the means of expression of human personality." - Edward Weston
 
Maybe we each have different styles for different scenarios.

Like a sweet style for portraits, a stark style for the street, a dramatic style for barrooms, a punchy-color style for gardens, etc etc etc
 
daveleo said:
Maybe we each have different styles for different scenarios.

Like a sweet style for portraits, a stark style for the street, a dramatic style for barrooms, a punchy-color style for gardens, etc etc etc
Click to expand...

If you truly have a style it transcends subject matter, equipment used. processes used or anything else, don't you think?
 
airfrogusmc said:
If you truly have a style it transcends subject matter, equipment used. processes used or anything else, don't you think?
Click to expand...

I don't have an answer for that. I don't know what to think about that, at the moment.

I feel like saying . . . . if your "style" is apparent in every image you make of every scenario then your work is self-centered (I hope this thread is in the "philosophy" section ! ).

Then I could ask "Okay, so my work is self-centered. Is that Bad?" . . . and I have no answer for that either.

(Maybe I should have stayed out of this topic, huh? :D )
 
daveleo said:
I don't have an answer for that. I don't know what to think about that, at the moment.

I feel like saying . . . . if your "style" is apparent in every image you make of every scenario then your work is self-centered (I hope this thread is in the "philosophy" section ! ).

Then I could ask "Okay, so my work is self-centered. Is that Bad?" . . . and I have no answer for that either.

(Maybe I should have stayed out of this topic, huh? :D )
Click to expand...

Look at the work of Weston, Gibson, DeCarava or even Arnold Newman. Its there. The works of painters like Monet, Van Gogh, Rothko, Picasso or writers like Hemingway, Joyce or musicians like Davis, Coltrane, Beethoven, sculpters like Moore they all have a style.
 
airfrogusmc said:
Look at the work of Weston, Gibson, DeCarava or even Arnold Newman. Its there. The works of painters like Monet, Van Gogh, Rothko, Picasso or writers like Hemingway, Joyce or musicians like Davis, Coltrane, Beethoven, sculpters like Moore they all have a style.
Click to expand...

Of course, I did that many years before this thread (and lots of others on the topic) was started. It is a wonderful topic.

In my mind (what's left of it) it's like that principle in physics . . . the fact that you observe an event, changes the event . . . . so the question is . . . when you impose your "style" on a scene, do you change the scene?

Probably, the answer is "Yes".

The next question is . . . . "Is it good that you changed the scene?"

Okay, now, I have given me a headache.
 
daveleo said:
Of course, I did that many years before this thread (and lots of others on the topic) was started. It is a wonderful topic.

In my mind (what's left of it) it's like that principle in physics . . . the fact that you observe an event, changes the event . . . . so the question is . . . when you impose your "style" on a scene, do you change the scene?

Probably, the answer is "Yes".

The next question is . . . . "Is it good that you changed the scene?"

Okay, now, I have given me a headache.
Click to expand...

My question would then be, change the scene? Adams was considered the ultimate purist but he shot, because of his vision and the zone system, the way he saw the scene in his minds eye and Yosemite didn't look the way Adams captured it but the way Adams saw it.
"In my mind's eye, I visualize how a particular . . . sight and feeling will appear on a print. If it excites me, there is a good chance it will make a good photograph. It is an intuitive sense, an ability that comes from a lot of practice." - Ansel Adams

"When I'm ready to make a photograph, I think I quite obviously see in my minds eye something that is not literally there in the true meaning of the word. I'm interested in something which is built up from within, rather than just extracted from without." - Ansel Adams
 
I am not disagreeing with any of that. I am commenting that a "style" imposes a viewpoint on a scene. I actually think that a scene imposes a style in the mind of the photographer, but let's pass on that topic.

And (this is more important to me) imposing the same "style" on everything you see is self-centered. I think when you impose a variety of styles on a variety of scenarios, your work is less boring and more . . . what's a good word? . . . "honest" . . . because different scenes evoke different emotion and so I think call for different "styles"

Let's go ask Ansel Adams to shoot street scenes in Brooklyn subways and see what happens to his style.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top