style!

My question would then be isn't that the responsibility of any artist and gets to the heart of style? Capturing the world in a way that only you see and that gets to the heart of style and to being an artist. Otherwise you would be like the herd or like everyone else and that would be ordinary and then it wouldn't be special, right?
 
daveleo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well Bresson held a lot of these views and he is the king of the streets as did Winogrand, Davidson, Meyerowitz, DeCarava, they all had their own style and their way of seeing and capturing the streets and its what made and makes their work special.
 
back alley said:
isn't every photograph self centred?
Click to expand...

I feel like I have commandeered your thread, but it is a fascinating topic.

Yeh, every image (that the person worked hard at) is self-centered. That is not necessarily (IMO) bad, but try to tie this back to a consistent"style" for all your images.

Do you (or I) actually see every scene with the same emotion ? I don't. So the dilemma is (and I don't have an answer) . . . how can all my pictures have a "style" when I see every scene with different feelings?

Hopefully, the world is not holding its breath for my "final answer" :D
 
back alley said:
you can do it frank!
Click to expand...

Absolutely and this is talking about philosophy and many of these photographers were deep and fully understood what they were doing. How do we know this? Many of these photographers wrote a lot about it and these philosophies, which can help contribute to style, are what can separate a photographer from the masses, herd or the rest.
 
daveleo said:
I feel like I have commandeered your thread, but it is a fascinating topic.

Yeh, every image (that the person worked hard at) is self-centered. That is not necessarily (IMO) bad, but try to tie this back to a consistent"style" for all your images.

Do you (or I) actually see every scene with the same emotion ? I don't. So the dilemma is (and I don't have an answer) . . . how can all my pictures have a "style" when I see every scene with different feelings?

Hopefully, the world is not holding its breath for my "final answer" :D
Click to expand...

AHHHH and theres the difficult question. How do you make it all yours? Thats what will separate some from all the rest that you can't tell their work apart and you can't see any of them in their work.
 
Yeh, every image (that the person worked hard at) is self-centered. That is not necessarily (IMO) bad, but try to tie this back to a consistent"style" for all your images.

not a bad thing...more inevitable than not, i would 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 disagree. Look at William Eggleston's color work. It's his transfer dye process that developed his style. Other's gear like Winogrand with his use of Tri-X & 28mm lens that helped him develop his style of using the camera & how his prints look.
 
gb hill said:
I disagree. Look at William Eggleston's color work. It's his transfer dye process that developed his style. Other's gear like Winogrand with his use of Tri-X & 28mm lens that helped him develop his style of using the camera & how his prints look.
Click to expand...

But also look at his vision. You know an Eggleston when you look at the images because also the he way he sees and composes his images are very unique. Color is just the vehicle but an albeit a very important one. You can tell an Eggleston and its more than just whether his work is color or not though I do agree with the fact color does also play a very important role in his work. His vision was better captured with color but his compositions are still clearly Eggleston.
 
Godfrey said:
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
Click to expand...

+1

And some superfluous chatacters
 
What is "style" in photography anyway?

"Look" is heavily related to camera, lens and processing. It is much harder to develop a "look" with ever changing equipment.
 
Bille said:
What is "style" in photography anyway?

"Look" is heavily related to camera, lens and processing. It is much harder to develop a "look" with ever changing equipment.

What is the constant in your pictures, back alley?
Click to expand...

Some would say its what separates the photographer that has it from all the ones that don't have it and if you have truly developed a style it transcends all the equipment and all the changes.
 
I think Dave is right. I come back to an earlier question I posed: did Cartier-Bresson have a style? I don't see it.
 
Well if you look at what he wrote and then look at his work I would say he had a style. He was one of the few that ever consistently used leading lines, repeatings shapes and finding the moment when it all came together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top