| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/10/2005 08:10:19 PM · #1 |
Does anyone have any tips/comments/suggestions about developing one's own photographic style? Do you feel that you've developed your own style? If so, how do you know? Is there a difference between photographic style and photographic technique? If so, what is/are the difference(s)?
Message edited by author 2005-04-10 20:10:39. |
|
|
|
04/10/2005 08:13:19 PM · #2 |
I think Photographic style comes from what you love other than Photography. For instance, I'd say I have a much stronger backing in Architecture and Portraits when compared to say Landscapes/Wildlife/Nature.
I've loved Architecture since I was little, and people always seem to amaze me, so I love to capture them.
Photography brought me closer to those, and it brought me closer to nature. I like to be a well rounded photographer, so Ive been practicing more on the latter choices.
I think your style is what you love. Everyone can learn the technique side of it with some dedicated time.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2005 08:13:55 PM · #3 |
I think the first step in developing a photograhic style is to find favorite theme/subject. I don't think a real 'style' can be defined by a subjectively diverse portfolio in most cases. When you think of famous photographers in the past, you usually have a few images pop into mind that somewhat define that photographer's style.
The combination of subject and technique combined form a style. |
|
|
|
04/10/2005 08:15:46 PM · #4 |
| When I mention photographic technique, I mean a specific method used in the majority of one's photos. I.e., a photographer who shoots only at night. Is a photographer who only shoots at night demonstrating his own particular style, or does style go beyond subject/light/etc? |
|
|
|
04/10/2005 08:19:40 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think the first step in developing a photograhic style is to find favorite theme/subject. I don't think a real 'style' can be defined by a subjectively diverse portfolio in most cases. When you think of famous photographers in the past, you usually have a few images pop into mind that somewhat define that photographer's style.
The combination of subject and technique combined form a style. |
Thank you. I somewhat agree, although personally I don't feel that I have a particular style... yet.
Most of my subjects are mundane and my style is to capture the beauty in mundane things- i.e. a rusted barbed wire, graffiti on a door/etc. So if my subject is mundanity, the style would be the technique(s) involved in capturing mundane things to make them look beautiful/interesting. Does this make sense?
...I may have just answered my own question.
Message edited by author 2005-04-10 20:20:40. |
|
|
|
04/10/2005 08:20:11 PM · #6 |
| Your 'style' is really whatever you want it to be. You can also define it in your own way. |
|
|
|
04/10/2005 08:29:44 PM · #7 |
Interesting question.
I'm not sure I could answer it well since it made me think of my style which after looking at my portfolio made me realize that I have no definitive style as of yet.
I assume there are common threads or techniques that I use which contribute to style but nothing that jumps out as being mine.
I've been playing the guitar for a long time and I have a certain sound that people can pick out. It's based on techniques and patterns that I steadily use and my use of space(pauses). I think the same type of criteria could help define ones style in photography as well.
I do have a style with candids, now that I think about it. I never shoot when people are looking at the camera and I always crack the stupidest possible joke to make them laugh. For example, I'll mumble "say cheese" and then say "NO....let's make it GORGONZOLA!!!" in an exagerated Italian accent. That always seems to draw out a certain laugh or smile.
I'd like to give this more thought because it's been on mind lately as well.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2005 08:38:04 PM · #8 |
I believe that photographic style develops as a reflection of the photographers personality, provided the photographer is at ease with the equipment and under no pressure to produce specific subject images. After a photographer develops a style, then assigned images may well take on the persona of his style. I would not be concerned about developing a style, it should evolve naturally with time and experience.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2005 08:40:34 PM · #9 |
To set out to "develop a style" is highly artificial IMO. "Style" is a concept that's applied analytically after the fact. You shoot what you shoot, however you shoot it, and in the fullness of time possibly it becomes reasonable for someone to look at an image and say "That looks like a Fessel!" and you know you have a style.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2005 08:43:04 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
I would not be concerned about developing a style, it should evolve naturally with time and experience. |
I disagree. I think photographers should strive to develop a style by continually focusing on one aspect (subject/light quality/etc) of photography that they find most appealing. I know in my own photography, I've always been interested in mundane things as subjects. I feel that now I've added a reason for photographing mundane things, the reason being to show people the beauty of such subjects.
But still I feel I don't have a style all my own. This is what I don't understand. |
|
|
|
04/10/2005 08:51:10 PM · #11 |
I agree with what was said before about having consistent themes aiding in developing style. For example you can really see different styles when looking at different wedding photographers portfolios. This pic I really like because it all started out serious and wound up where you see it. Not the cleanest shot but shows a bit what I like to achieve and I had to print and frame three of this one.
This was taken with someone elses camera, is noisy as hell but was a big hit anyway. Again, I always try to make people laugh and I hope that somehow translates into style.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2005 08:52:36 PM · #12 |
I think it would be presumptious and pretentious to 'claim' a style and then proceed to adopt that style. It ceases to be style at that point, but rather an affectation.
Message edited by author 2005-04-10 20:53:54.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2005 09:06:59 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
I think it would be presumptious and pretentious to 'claim' a style and then proceed to adopt that style. It ceases to be style at that point, but rather an affectation. |
Most great photographers have created a style all their own. We can't condemn these photographers as being pretentious because they've defined their own style. At some point, in order to create one's own style, a photographer must focus on one particular aspect of photography. I.e. Ansel Adams' black and white images, Troy Paiva's night photography of Western U.S. (//www.lostamerica.com/lostframe.html),etc., etc.
Message edited by author 2005-04-10 21:10:19. |
|
|
|
04/10/2005 09:08:23 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
I think it would be presumptious and pretentious to 'claim' a style and then proceed to adopt that style. It ceases to be style at that point, but rather an affectation. |
What about things that you gravitate towards, things that you choose to hone and the patterns used to get what you're looking to achieve?
It doesn't have to be affectatious or adopted, it's just what you do.
I go crazy when I see breaking shafts of light and if there's something interesting in their path or I see something cool I can arrange...I'll start to snap away. Some people might just walk on by the same view. Style can be born out of something as simple as that. It's clearly a concious effort and particular but there's nothing wrong with that.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2005 09:14:12 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by ElGordo:
I think it would be presumptious and pretentious to 'claim' a style and then proceed to adopt that style. It ceases to be style at that point, but rather an affectation. |
What about things that you gravitate towards, things that you choose to hone and the patterns used to get what you're looking to achieve?
It doesn't have to be affectatious or adopted, it's just what you do.
I go crazy when I see breaking shafts of light and if there's something interesting in their path or I see something cool I can arrange...I'll start to snap away. Some people might just walk on by the same view. Style can be born out of something as simple as that. It's clearly a concious effort and particular but there's nothing wrong with that. |
I couldn't agree more. For some reason, I gravitate toward certain subjects and certain light qualities. I LOVE cloudy days, and now I even take my camera out in the rain because the light is so cool to me. I seem to find many more subjects in such light. I love old forgotten things, like bottlecaps, dead flowers.
If I didn't have an opinion about those things, I would be photographing aimlessly, without a goal in mind.
Anyhow, this post is a deviation from the original question. Signing off for the night.
Message edited by author 2005-04-10 21:17:59. |
|
|
|
04/10/2005 09:24:31 PM · #16 |
I have to agree with ElGordo's premise.
To me, it is not the subject that makes a photograph, but the emotional transport it charges. It is not the subject that makes a sonata, a poem or an installation, but the energy it resonates by.
A photographer or a poet may have something to say at age twenty. He may have no more to say at age fifty, and while both may be right, the one with fifty years on his back should be expected to say it with conviction. The conviction comes from a prolonged exposure to matters of one's interest. For a twenty year-old to speak or photograph as convincingly, an intensity of experience could substitute.
Style is having something to say and to need to say it.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2005 09:33:10 PM · #17 |
Here is the style of a famous photographer.. can you guess who it is?
- Camera is used handheld
- His photography is spontaneous
- He moves around fast and works the subject from multiple angles
- He pays close attention to details when composing in the viewfinder because his goal is to create images which will be printed full frame, without any cropping.
- His goal is to capture the the moment when disparate human and non-human elements in the scene that suddenly come together to form a coherent whole.
- He photographs only in black and white
- Moves around the scene continuously in search of the moment when composition, point of view, people and other elements come together.
This seems like a good example of someone's unique style.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2005 09:34:17 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I have to agree with ElGordo's premise.
To me, it is not the subject that makes a photograph, but the emotional transport it charges. It is not the subject that makes a sonata, a poem or an installation, but the energy it resonates by.
A photographer or a poet may have something to say at age twenty. He may have no more to say at age fifty, and while both may be right, the one with fifty years on his back should be expected to say it with conviction. The conviction comes from a prolonged exposure to matters of one's interest. For a twenty year-old to speak or photograph as convincingly, an intensity of experience could substitute.
Style is having something to say and to need to say it. |
I agree. Style is more than just the chosen subject. |
|
|
|
04/10/2005 09:54:45 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Style is having something to say and to need to say it. |
I don't know if I would define style that way.
Art schools, music schools, photography schools and even the streets are filled with people who have something to say and the need to say it but still have no style.
How you say it is closer to the essence of style. It should all of course, develope and flow naturally. If you do things with great intent, I do completely agree that it will most usually come off as, forced, affectatious dribble.
My Surrealism entry suffers from that, for example. Contrived with no style.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2005 10:09:11 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Style is having something to say and to need to say it. |
I don't know if I would define style that way.
Art schools, music schools, photography schools and even the streets are filled with people who have something to say and the need to say it but still have no style.
How you say it is closer to the essence of style. It should all of course, develope and flow naturally. If you do things with great intent, I do completely agree that it will most usually come off as, forced, affectatious dribble.
My Surrealism entry suffers from that, for example. Contrived with no style. |
I understand your ideas here. I do agree that by forcing a style on one's photography, the photographs would suffer and show. This has happened to me. I tried to create images with lots of vibrant color and highly photoshopped, and the effects were disastrous - my heart wasn't in it. My intent was to satisfy the masses, and this should never be one's style, because it will not work. If your heart is in what you photograph, the results will be good, or at least, you will be content with the results. Because really, if the photographer doesn't like his own results, nothing else matters. I don't think people should make photographs to satisfy other people. I think people should make photographs to satisfy their own curiosity. This doesn't mean you can't generate your own style...that is not a bad thing to do. Style is how you photograph in your own unique way. If you can describe your style, you can hone your skills and your vision.
Message edited by author 2005-04-10 22:18:51. |
|
|
|
04/10/2005 10:21:04 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
...Art schools, music schools, photography schools and even the streets are filled with people who have something to say and the need to say it but still have no style... |
Although I agree that both streets and schools are filled with people, I find that people who have something to say (beyond a reiterated opinion) are a rare breed indeed.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2005 10:46:40 PM · #22 |
My "style" changes with my moods : )
|
|
|
|
04/10/2005 11:08:10 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by nfessel:
Here is the style of a famous photographer.. can you guess who it is?
- Camera is used handheld
- His photography is spontaneous
- He moves around fast and works the subject from multiple angles
- He pays close attention to details when composing in the viewfinder because his goal is to create images which will be printed full frame, without any cropping.
- His goal is to capture the the moment when disparate human and non-human elements in the scene that suddenly come together to form a coherent whole.
- He photographs only in black and white
- Moves around the scene continuously in search of the moment when composition, point of view, people and other elements come together.
This seems like a good example of someone's unique style. |
Describes Cartier-Bresson nicely.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2005 11:14:30 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by nfessel:
Originally posted by ElGordo:
I think it would be presumptious and pretentious to 'claim' a style and then proceed to adopt that style. It ceases to be style at that point, but rather an affectation. |
Most great photographers have created a style all their own. We can't condemn these photographers as being pretentious because they've defined their own style. At some point, in order to create one's own style, a photographer must focus on one particular aspect of photography. I.e. Ansel Adams' black and white images, Troy Paiva's night photography of Western U.S. (//www.lostamerica.com/lostframe.html),etc., etc. |
We need to make a distinction here; there's no doubt that people like Adams, Cartier-Bresson, Helmut Newton, Diane Arbus, countless others actually HAVE recognizable "styles"; nobody's disputing that. But a couple of us have remarked that the premsie of this thread, "developing a style", puts the cart before the horse. These people did what they did and over time their vision evolved into this unique style, but they didn't set out to consciously "create" their own style. It just is what it is; a certain consistency of vision and technique.
To say "I need to create my "own" style and set out to do so is at a certain level extremely presumptuous. And it's dangerous to one's develpment as an artist also, in many ways, because it involves cutting oneself off from many potential wellsprings of creativity and vision that might otherwise serve as cross-pollinators in the evolution of a truly natural, unforced "style" that IS completely yours.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2005 11:39:25 PM · #25 |
It may be that you have to go through something like this to get to the depths of real expression. It's about process and getting to know yourself and your subject and how to combine the two.
Originally posted by pawdrix:
If you do things with great intent, I do completely agree that it will most usually come off as, forced, affectatious dribble.
|
|
|
