DSLRUsers.com

I was chatting tonight to Matt Bonnington (aka rokkstar) about the concept of a photographic style and the fact certain people have them. As some examples Wendell, Dan (cre8tivepixels) and Leigh (nnnnsic) do as far as I'm concerned. Matt suggested, and I'm inclined to agree, that I do (his description was "clean, symmetrical, blue") and of course there are famous examples like Ansell Adams. So.. do you have a definable style? do you think there are others here who do? Does it matter?

Do baby photos count as a style?

It is a good question - I feel I have no definitive style, yet I enjoy trying to emulate a whole range of styles (rather unsuccessfully, but I am still learning).

Stubbsy - interesting question - one member who definitely springs to mind is Theodoros - iposiniditos ... his style has been developing really quite strongly (at least to me) and his photos have his 'mark' on them - it has been a joy to see how much Theo's photography has grown !!!

I wish I had a style , but I think I'm still in the stuffing around and play catagory , but I think that if I did, it would be in the 'humanising nature' catagory, and trying to bring a little of the wonder of the macro world into more peoples consciousness , and trying to capture some of the soul/character of the subject

- I think that it is a fantastic thing to develop a 'look' to your shots that identify them as 'yours'.

And Matt's description of your style is definitely spot on

I like to think I do, at least that I'm working on.

I like high contrast, saturated motorsport images, using plenty of DOF, shooting from a low position where I can get some oof foreground in.

Not that I'm different from about 10000000000 other photogs worldwide though.

Good question though!

Having a style can be an advantage if producing pics that will be seen by the masses and hence, identify you. It’s a bit like acting, typecasting.

I prefer not to have a style as it then leaves me the option to be lateral most of the time in my photography.

i find that my band photography definatly has a style. I seem to shoot every gig in the same manner, most of my photos are upper body with (i think) a very like you would see if you were there... feel

I most definitely have a photographic style. I would describe it as random, technically challenged and myopic.

Cheers
Steffen.

I have no style at all...

oh... we were talking photographic... um... the first statement may be true. I guess I prefer scientific type nature photographs, well lit with plenty of detail. I don't have the Stubbsy "wow" factor.

I think you need to specialize in something to be able to get a "style". For example, I think I used to have a style when I shot weddings but I could not possibly use the same style for macro, landscapes etc.

I think that a style is particularly discernible when the photographer specializes in a genre say landscape or portraits because the images tell how he/she sees and approaches the subject matter. Some of you mentioned Ansell Adams and our own Theodoros.

Conversely, a style is more difficult to detect and even to acquire when the photographer photographs anything on sight. For example, some friends have commented on my style, which leaves me somewhat perplexed and keeps eluding me, so they might be seeing a developing pattern. I am observing in this forum that some of us are better at one genre than another. I supposed that's the beauty of photography. Please feel free to disagree.

I have a definite style. I think its called "parc", but then I'm dyslexic.

Documentary, apparently (Thanks Joe)

I'm not so sure I have a 'style' as such.. all that I know is that certain images appeal to me and others don't.. although I have had other photographers tell me that they think they would recognise my work anywhere.. I would like to think that as time went by I would eventually develop my own togging 'style' as I'd hate to be throwing out generic images for the rest of my life..

'Style' is more often a product of subject matter than any other factor. IE Ansel Adams = landscape
Salgado=industrial
Nachtway=conflict
Arbus=odd people
Cartie Bresson=street candids
Sanders = German workers circa 1920

Whilst subject matter does not define the 'whole' style it is probably the major component. For instance, Adams often shot his carefully composed spectacular weather landscapes at f64. If he shot a wine glass or a cotton reel at f64 would you recognise him as the artist? If he shot a cactus could you pick it from a Brett Weston cactus? Probably not.

This is an interesting topic Peter and I hope you get a lively discussion going.

I don't think anyone could/should define their own style. It's ultimately upto the people, their audience to determine what they perceive a photographer's style to be.

Matt. K wrote:Salgado=industrial

See, I have 3 Salgado images at home (on little espresso cups) and I would not classify them as "industrial" as they relate to the processing of coffee.

Now, this does not suggest that I disagree with Matt, but my perspective would be different based on my small sample of images seen.

What I consider interesting is the extent to which a person's "style" is significantly influenced by others' styles or by other factors (passion for diving, love of scenery, enjoyment of darkroom/PP manipulation of images).

Perhaps I should have said industrial/rural third world workers being exploited by greedy capitalists. I find it ironic that Salgados images would be featured on coffee cups that hold the coffee that exploited peasants get paid a pittance to pick. Try saying that 7 times real quick.

Onyx wrote:I don't think anyone could/should define their own style. It's ultimately upto the people, their audience to determine what they perceive a photographer's style to be.

That is a most interesting comment Onyx! And I think one that sums up my outlook on photography quite well.

I know what I like to shoot, and well frankly I think that is motor sports at the moment, I have a passion for it and thoroughly enjoy it. Like Alan I really like saturated, high contrast motor sport photos that tell a story. I look at some of those I admire in the field and know I have a long long way to go before I think someone will say I have a specific style!

For now I'll keep trying to make those images I so admire and in doing so capture some great memories, events, and action!

Matt. K wrote:Perhaps I should have said industrial/rural third world workers being exploited by greedy capitalists. I find it ironic that Salgados images would be featured on coffee cups that hold the coffee that exploited peasants get paid a pittance to pick. Try saying that 7 times real quick.

Illy booklet for Salgado "In Prinicipio" Cup Series wrote:The quality of coffee begins at the origin and illy works alongside the cultivators with the help of argonomists and techinicians. In order to better stimulate cultivators and their production, Illy transfers its knowledge and applies a sustainable price, higher to that of the market, given to the quality being produced.

I am not going to argue the extent to which coffee roasters, such as Illy, exploit growers or whether mechanisms such as Fair Trade are good things or lip service.

Regardless, they are great images which I believe have a distinctive style about them.

I think style is a reflection of the preferences of the photographer in terms of form, shape and subject matter. I don't think one's style necessarily is evident in all of one's photos. One can take a family shot or a few snaps at parties and show no discernible style at all.

I think style evolves and becomes more profound as the photographer/artist identifies with his/her style. A number of people said they had no style. While this may be true, it can change as the photographer chooses to focus more (no pun intended) on image, meaning and form.

The journey to style (please follow at your own risk)

1. Buy a camera that your partner thinks is too expensive
2. Experiment with the knobs
3. Take a photo of your foot and discover depth of field - enlarge your toe nail and discover pixels and sharpness
4. Take 35,000 photos in the first three weeks and find seven of them you like
5. Post one on the internet and only read the good comments - that other stuff about out of focus, crop it, not enough contrast are all about jealousy
6. You now have the beginnings of style
7. Buy another much more expensive camera and an even more expensive lens knowing that 2.8 is just sooooooooooooo much better than 3.5
8. Join Dpreview and find out that many sad people think your lens is soft on the right side and that you should think yourself lucky for having one of the few 'good copies'
9. Sell all your stuff and change brands and suffer from post purchase dissonance, always asking yourself, 'why didn't I start with that brand' knowing that if you did you would have, at this point, ended up with the brand you just left.
10. Start taking photos of only tug boats in black and white...you now have style

Is spray and pray a style

MATT

Onyx wrote:I don't think anyone could/should define their own style. It's ultimately upto the people, their audience to determine what they perceive a photographer's style to be.

I don't quite agree with this view. If I consciously make choices that affect the outcome of my photos and I consistently make those same choices, then I don't see why I can't give myself credit for creating my own style. Whether on not the audience likes them is another story.

I think you will find that the photographers who are known well enough and have a percieved style have cultivated that style very carefully by what they allow us to see of their work. Henri Cartier-Bresson for instance took tens of thousands of photographs but only rarely did one make it into his portfolio. He chose only those images that defined and maintained his crafted style. This is probably true of most of the greats of photography. The elements of style would include the subject matter, the point of view, the technical quality, the tonal range, type of lighting and exposure, processing techniques, print size and density etc etc. Show me any photographer who has taken 10,000 images or more and I will find 50 amongst them that exhibit a recognizable style. I could probably organise 6 or 7 different stylistic sets from the works of that one photographer. If that photographer wanted to define his own style then he would only allow me access to images that would suit his purpose.

In other words, style is an act of self-censorship?

EDIT: I suppose you mean 10000 keepers when you say 10000 shots. I could take 10000 shots and you won't find 50 to define a style. If you're lucky you'll find 50 keepers

Cheers
Steffen.

i think i have a "tart" style ... i'll shoot anything




maybe some people think my style is landscape but maybe because i manage to get more of them to work than any other type so tend to post more of them than other style.

maybe people think my style is shooting competition 4WD's from the hip ... but when you have a video in the right hand all you can do is point the camera in the general direction and hope for the best as you try and hit the shutter button left handed

Big Red wrote:i think i have a "tart" style ... i'll shoot anything




maybe some people think my style is landscape but maybe because i manage to get more of them to work than any other type so tend to post more of them than other style.

maybe people think my style is shooting competition 4WD's from the hip ... but when you have a video in the right hand all you can do is point the camera in the general direction and hope for the best as you try and hit the shutter button left handed

Shane, I think you may be confusing "Style" with "Subject matter"
10 people can all shoot landscapes for example, but each one can have his/her own unique style.

I think you may be confusing "Style" with "Subject matter"
10 people can all shoot landscapes for example, but each one can have his/her own unique style.

Which reinforce what I said before. That is:

a style is particularly discernible when the photographer specializes in a genre say landscape or portraits because the images tell how he/she sees and approaches the subject matter. Some of you mentioned Ansell Adams and our own Theodoros.

I used the term "genre" instead of "type" for landscape, portraiture, macro photography and I defined "style" as the systematic approach or perspective developed over time and many shots by a particular photographer. Perhaps my terms are not altogether correct, but I would argue that the use of the term "style" in that sense is more appropriate for the approach or personal perspective. Am I being pedantic?

The closest thing I have to a style, I think, is dictated by my decision to plaster my work cubicle with photos, and involves not so much a shooting style, but rather a post-processing style:

* Black and white
* Landscape orientation
* White border equivalent to 10% of the height and width of the photo
* Slight tendency towards under-exposing for darker shadows and blacks

Looking at the 22 photos I've got on the wall, they're mostly holiday related (15), rarely show people or identifiable figures (3 - 2 of which are statues), are usually of man-made objects or scenes (13) and only a few are macro (4).

I was all set to leave it at that, but looking at the above summary I actually now can see a bit of a style: 'unemotional, impartial observer'. At least with regard to the photos I choose to display.

BT*ist
You make a very good point when you mention 'processing' style! It could be argued that some of the master photographers had a darkroom, or processing, style. Gene Smith for instance and certainly Adams. But with digital photography this becomes a whole new ball game and the processing in-computer is certainly going to give photographers more scope for refining their images to their own particular taste. It is, or will become, a more intrinsic part of 'style'. Without doubt there will be photographers who have mediocre camera skills but prodigious processing skills and their work will stand out.

i want my work to be clean, contrasty, saturated, and representative of the moment.

half way between art and photojournalism, i guess.