style!

[back alley]

who has it?

who wants it?

can one change it?

i keep looking at other people's images...we are told it's good to seek knowledge elsewhere and that this is an excellent way to learn and develop.

when i look and find something that i really like it usually looks nothing like the images that i make.

when first starting out in photography i discovered that most of the images that i really liked were produced with wide angle lenses...one would think that the first thing i would have done was run out and buy a wide angle lens...nah! i bought an 85mm and ran with it.

i love dark, smokey noir images filled with mystery and wonder...not one of those on my blog!
i love blurry, out of focus shots that more hint at the subject than show it in details...very few of those shots on my blog...
i love those limited depth of field images where the subject is in your face and the background is drowned in blur...don't even own a lens that could do that...

do i have a style?
i think so...
it is really mine?
it must be...i don't shoot like many others...
can i change my style?
doubtful...

 

[Damaso]

You can enjoy a style without copying it in your own work, right?

 

[back alley]

You can enjoy a style without copying it in your own work, right?

yes!

it's just that sometimes i like their work more than mine.

is it possible to believe that i am a very good photographer that takes uninspired photos?

 

[Damaso]

yes!

it's just that sometimes i like their work more than mine.

is it possible to believe that i am a very good photographer that takes uninspired photos?

You can believe anything you'd like! I think even very good photographers like other people's work better (sometimes). But I do think that once your reach a level where you're happy with your work you can appreciate and admire it even as you find fault with it.

From reading your posts for a while I get the sense that you are unhappy/frustrated with where you are at. I know you've been thinking of shaking things up a bit, have you had any luck?

 

[Richard G]

A style develops. It should not be pursued. I found the early images from the Monochrom interesting from this point of view. Leica got a number of experts to take it out for a spin, but almost always the great photogrpaher kept to his usual style and did not explore the capacities of the camera so much. It is only here amongst mostly amateurs that we see the wonderful tonality, resolution, clever post processing and yes, the high ISO performance. RFFers aren't sticking to their syle, they are exploring the camera's offerings.

 

[back alley]

You can believe anything you'd like! I think even very good photographers like other people's work better (sometimes). But I do think that once your reach a level where you're happy with your work you can appreciate and admire it even as you find fault with it.

From reading your posts for a while I get the sense that you are unhappy/frustrated with where you are at. I know you've been thinking of shaking things up a bit, have you had any luck?

i vacillate...sometimes i quite like my stuff and other times am ready to hit the delete button!

i need to associate with some creative types and have some mind altering discussions.

 

[Damaso]

A style develops. It should not be pursued.

I disagree. I think you can pursue a style. To me pursuit means that you consciously try to develop a personal style, which of course is different than simply trying to copy someone else's style. But I think without real effort many people never "develop" past a certain point....

 

[back alley]

A style develops. It should not be pursued. I found the early images from the Monochrom interesting from this point of view. Leica got a number of experts to take it out for a spin, but almost always the great photogrpaher kept to his usual style and did not explore the capacities of the camera so much. It is only here amongst mostly amateurs that we see the wonderful tonality, resolution, clever post processing and yes, the high ISO performance. RFFers aren't sticking to their syle, they are exploring the camera's offerings.

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.

problem is i don't always like my style.

sorta like preferring other people's cooking to my own.

 

[Damaso]

i vacillate...sometimes i quite like my stuff and other times am ready to hit the delete button!

i need to associate with some creative types and have some mind altering discussions.

That's not a bad idea. One idea is to try and be as specific as possible about what you do and don't like about your style. Then you can figure out what you want to change and how you can go about doing that...

 

[back alley]

i think my photos lack the 'wow' factor...they remind me more and more of pretty calendar pictures.

 

[Damaso]

i think my photos lack the 'wow' factor...they remind me more and more of pretty calendar pictures.

That's a good place to start. Looking at your Flickr feed I don't disagree. As an exercise why don't you spend some time looking at say five of your favorite images from other photographers. Perhaps images that aren't too different in terms of subject from what you find yourself surrounded by (after all no point in mooning over pics of penguins, right?). Look at those images and REALLY deconstruct them. I would advise actually writing what you like about each image in terms of composition etc. This will force your to stop generalizing and really put into words what you enjoy about these images.

Then do the same with five of your own favorite images. Take that same critical eye towards your own work. It isn't enough to say your images lack the wow factor, you have to be able to look at your work and see exactly how, to you, your images are falling short.

This should if nothing else get you thinking!

Cheers!

 

[back alley]

'don't disagree' is a double negative...ouch!

but i understand...

i will follow your advice and see where it leads me.
thanks!

 

[raphaelaaron]

in my opinion, it's harmless to look for inspiration in other peoples' work. many people share similar styles. i hover towards some more than others, and they always seems to be people with a similar style. but the cool thing is they contribute to a style collectively, and even if it looks very similar, their own pieces is what makes it unique.

my latest endeavor is shooting geometrically sound images in the form of HCB, but also with a mixture of one point perspectivism from some film director i admire (i.e. Kubrick)

inspiration is everywhere, and it's okay to take it and make it your own.

 

[Richard G]

I disagree. I think you can pursue a style. To me pursuit means that you consciously try to develop a personal style, which of course is different than simply trying to copy someone else's style. But I think without real effort many people never "develop" past a certain point....

The question might be what is style. If it is a subtle indication of an outlook evident in the choice of subject matter, perspective and overall treatment of the finished print then I think it exists and I think some of it emerges and perhaps some of it pinned down by reflection, editing and consolidation and therefore is pursued to some extent. I still think this emerges with a mature reflective process which should not be forced.

The best style is no style is often said in teaching people to write. Orwell is held up as a master of simple unadorned prose. In photography there are more dimensions. I suppose I am too far up one of the spectrum in my view of this. Recognition of a certain look that pleases is certainly important, and beyond the picture-taking, post-processing images to achieve that look is clearly a worthwhile conscious endeavour. But not all photographs require the same treatment. Pursuing style, as in consciously developing a personal style, is something artificial to me. I see this in photography and I see it in architecture. The imposition of a signature is jarring. Of course, for commercial reasons a signature look in photos, paintings and buildings will have a clear logic. Did Cartier-Bresson have a style? Does Elliott Erwitt?

Here on RFF a number of photographers' work is recognisable partly related to the subject matter, and partly due to their superlative compositional skills. Is that style? Even the RFFers I am thinking of have variable subject matter where there is nothing linking one picture to another from a stylistic point of view.

 

[daveleo]

. . . . is it possible to believe that i am a very good photographer that takes uninspired photos?

You are not alone. That is how I feel about the pictures that I make. They are "pleasant", "interesting", "pretty", but tiresome ! !

 

[sanmich]

I think a lot of us feel the same.

I hope this is not hijacking the thread but it made me think:
I never, ever, critic an online picture.
Most people will do the same, which means that my images gets either a "like" (no I'm not on FB) or (for most of them) are ignored.
I would love to see a critic group, maybe on this forum.
A place where, if you put your picture, you must be ready to take the heat, but only from the group, only from people genuinely dedicated to make progress, and are ready to take the heat themselves. Criticism can be made in a constructive and polite way.
I know it still hurts, but I would be ready to take it, provided that I feel I learn from it.
What do you think?
A photo-club online?

 

[astro8]

I'll be in it, Michael.

 

[Damaso]

I think a good critique club is important. But membership is important. If it is just comprised of novices little will likely be learned. If there is a mix of skill sets, experience and perspectives lots will be learned. One thing I appreciated in art school was teacher led critique sessions. The teacher often said little but would nudge the discussion here and there among the often shy students.

I think one rule of thumb might be to stay away from one or tow word critiques like "great" or "wow" but have people actually write a sentence or two about what they think.

 

[mfogiel]

The style, should be a consequence of what you are trying to convey, not an end in itself. If it is an end in itself, it becomes a sterile exercise.
Besides this, think about Egglestone's pictures in B&W, or Giacomelli's in colour. Think about HCB using a 300mm tele, or about Capa using a fisheye. Think about Natchwey with an 8x10 field camera or about Weston using an Olympus Pen. An Ansel Adams with an iPhone and Instagram, and the Bechers using a Holga.
Then think about yourself - would it make any difference if you shot with an 8x10 or an iPhone ? If not, then you have to think first about what you want to show.

 

[Charlie Lemay]

I have a page on my web site http://charlielemay.net/azsfiles/zonepg5.htm that addresses some of these issues. For me, it begins with seeing what is actually out there instead of what you are told to expect to see. That's what looking at everyone else' s work can keep you from doing. Instead of aquiring the vision of others, work on shedding the vision of others until you are left with your own unique vision. This is very hard to do and is the essense of a rewarding experience making art. Art can be a strategy to navigate the established order with a goal of succeding materially in that arena, or it can be an endless self-exploration that changes the artist. On very rare occassions, it can be both, but to me, the later is the real prize. If we go out to make pictures we've seen before, we are learning our craft. If we forget about images we've seen before, and just see what we see, we learn about ourselves. The photograph is always just a record of our seeing.