| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/11/2005 12:50:29 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
... 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. ...
------------------------and-------------------------
sig: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds-RE Emerson |
While making others laugh, I certainly hope you have a sense of humor -- because this is funny and has me laughing as I type. :D
---
As for the discussion, I agree with those stating that styles evolve from the activities and actions performed. Consider for example; when learning to walk there is no consideration on how the activity looks to others -- all concentration is centered on getting across the floor. How we learned to 'get across the floor' developed muscles that as we excersized them more and more became the grooved in method of doing the activity. Now I ask, how many can recognize someone in a distance strictly by their 'style' of walking.
A style developes from repeatedly performing similar activities in a similar manner -- a stabilization of method (or learning pattern, as it has been called) that is essential for further advancement. Of course, we are thinking beings and are not tied to the patterns we created unknowing while our attention was elsewhere -- we can always analyze how we do things and choose to alter them.
It is not a bad thing to be concerned about your 'style', after all public relations is a very valid focus of attention for anyone that knows anyone else. However, I feel the changes must be from one stable method of activity to another -- after all, it is easy to imagine walking across broken ground with style and grace, but quite impossible if your attention is on how your walking instead of where your stepping.
David
/edit: spelling & clarity
Message edited by author 2005-04-11 00:51:45.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 01:54:15 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by nfessel:
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)? |
You are being entirely too self-conscious if you set out to develope a personal style for your photography. To paraphrase an earlier poster, that is affecting a style. Don't worry about what your own personal style is until you have taken about a hunderd thousand keepers, than go back through them looking for similiarities to find your style. Any other approach does not result in your own personal style, but rather the style you wish you had.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 02:19:09 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by nfessel:
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)? |
You are being entirely too self-conscious if you set out to develope a personal style for your photography. To paraphrase an earlier poster, that is affecting a style. Don't worry about what your own personal style is until you have taken about a hunderd thousand keepers, than go back through them looking for similiarities to find your style. Any other approach does not result in your own personal style, but rather the style you wish you had. |
Bingo.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 06:51:06 AM · #29 |
From my own experience of other art forms, I find that the consensus amongst the experienced is that the most important thing to do is to keep doing it. If you want to be a writer, then write. It doesn't matter if it's rubbish, as long as you learn from your mistakes and carry on. Talent does play a part but only in the amount of time you spend writing rubbish before you start to develop.
Having a 'style' is overrrated. The word in that sense simply means that people expect certain things from you and it can be a great burden if you want to do something else. If your style develops naturally, then great; otherwise it's best just to concentrate on doing better.
Of course I speak with a deep inexperience of photography but I think that this applies.
Oh and copying opther people's style can be a great learning experience as long as you remember why you're doing it.
Message edited by author 2005-04-11 06:52:30. |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 10:27:48 AM · #30 |
For years I've speaking on this topic in the music forums relating to guitarists in particular where I feel more at home than in the photographic realm. With music I find it so easy to hear and define both technique and stye where in photography I think it might be harder to differentiate.
For example, Keith Richards has pretty shabby technique but a very distinctive style. Even though he's not technically heavy he still uses lots of techniques. Bends, slides, vibrato pinch harmonics etc.
I've been trying to make comparisons regarding style and technique between the two arts and while there are so many similarities there are also some stark differences.
There are also lot's of technically proficient players (sax, piano, guitar etc.)that have absolutely no style and very little to say.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 11:17:28 AM · #31 |
| What I find interesting about certain people's styles is the pshychology behind their work. I'm not a phychologist by any means, but I find it iteresting when the majority of a persons work is dark or desaturated quite a bit, or to the other end and is always bright and colorful. It would be interesting to hear what some psychologists would say about people's styles. Is the style of some photographers a window into the personality of the photographer? Obviously this would not apply to everybody. Just a thought. |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 11:51:06 AM · #32 |
Experiement, do many things, find something you do well, keep doing it.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 01:29:11 PM · #33 |
| I submit that there is an abundance of very successful photographers that do not have a recognizeable style, preferring to provide what the customer wants regardless of style. I see nothing wrong with aspiring to be recognized for a style, but self proclaiming one seems a bit gauche. Styles can be very limiting; if you photograph nothing but radishes in various settings and poses you will have a style, albeit one with limited appeal. |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 01:41:59 PM · #34 |
| This is such a good discussion I would like to ask if anyone here believes that some DPCers actually have a style that is appreciated. IMHO, yes. Heida has a distinctive and beautiful style, as does Grigrigirl. No doubt there are a few more (that do not jump to mind) that produce an excellent and stylish photograph. |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 01:50:52 PM · #35 |
See my problem, I think my photographic "style" is developing nicely. And I have a tendency toward unusual perspective shots that a large number of people like but not all.
My problem is in the technical. Getting the focus just right, etc. |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 02:01:21 PM · #36 |
I would say that I have a "style." I cannot describe what this style is as I do not do it intentionally. As a learning experience, I often try to take photos in the style of somebody that I admire, but they always end up looking like I took them. Sometimes I wish I could get different results but that's just the way it is. I don't think it has to do with equipment, angles, lighting, or processing techniques either, although such things certainly do play a role. I have a wide range of work but somehow a few people are always able to guess that a photo is mine. I think it has a lot to do with how you see. Personality and the need to say something are crucial elements to an individual's style for sure. I dissagree with what many people have said in this thread; it seems some of us are replacing "repetitiveness" or "habit" with "style." I think style is something that breaks through these boundaries.
Message edited by author 2005-04-11 14:02:11. |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 02:56:42 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
This is such a good discussion I would like to ask if anyone here believes that some DPCers actually have a style that is appreciated. IMHO, yes. Heida has a distinctive and beautiful style, as does Grigrigirl. No doubt there are a few more (that do not jump to mind) that produce an excellent and stylish photograph. |
kiwiness and magnetic9999 come to mind as dpc'ers with a style of their own. Mustn't forget Jacko, perhaps the most distinctive here.
Message edited by author 2005-04-11 14:58:15.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 03:03:02 PM · #38 |
What a great discussion! It really resonates with me, because it's something I personally struggle with. It seems that there are two distinct camps in this discussion; those who feel that any consciously made style decisions are "affectations", and those who feel that a style can be adopted, learned, cultivated without being false.
I don't believe these ideas are mutually exclusive. I feel that when one masters a style of shooting to the point where it comes naturally or automatically, and where the result does not seem force-fit into the style, then it cannot be called affectation. It is at this point that we feel that the style represents the photographer’s voice, that the style is an integral part of her/his message.
Conversely, when a photographer decides "I'm going to shoot in such-and-such style today," without further consideration, the results often seem discordant, the apparent message is not in harmony with the style, and so the style seems affected.
I believe that it is possible for a photographer to have more than one area of talent, and to work in more than one style. When I look back across a few decades of my casual film photography, one common thread appears: I naturally tend to photograph in a very "documentary" manner, very straightforwardâ€Â¦ pedestrian, I dare say. One of the great things about DPC for me has been a necessity to broaden my thinking and, yes, to shoot in "styles" that I'm not accustomed to. It's allowed me to discover some talents that I might well not have discovered on my own. I sincerely hope that my development will lead me to being able to speak fluently with one or more of these styles. If so, then I will have truly grown as a photographer.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 03:09:39 PM · #39 |
| style is very important. for example you can always notice, if the photo is taken by Anne Geddes (i think it spell like this) |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 03:11:46 PM · #40 |
| The way I look at it is that style is something others associate with you and you have no idea of. |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 03:15:34 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by nfessel:
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. |
you are right. but if a man tryes to make something as he wants, it takes too much time and at the same time it need really hard work. but time after time, when you study more and more (in this case about photography) you develop your own style.
It's same with paintors, you can never confuse picasso with Mone... |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 03:23:34 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Grigolly:
style is very important. for example you can always notice, if the photo is taken by Anne Geddes (i think it spell like this) |
I can't tell, if this post is a satirical comment or a straightforward one.
Ann Geddes' work is about as far removed from any photographic style I can think of. Her photographs are a commodity fit for consumption, which, by my very personal evaluation, comes very close to an exploitation of both subject (a vulnerable one, at that) and prospective buyers (appealing to sentiment as opposed to real feelings).
I (opinion!) consider her work objectionable for these reasons.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 03:35:00 PM · #43 |
but anyway you can't decline that she has one of the best baby photos.
Message edited by author 2005-04-11 15:39:09. |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 03:35:01 PM · #44 |
Really good discussion and it is showing forward thinking
But none is warm in the discussion :)
keep on talking :)
Icerock |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 03:45:40 PM · #45 |
It is easy to fall into the trap of calling what one shoots their style, rather than the way they shoot it. As an exercise, and just for yourself, try to put into words what a certain photographer's style is without making any reference to their subjects.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 04:18:42 PM · #46 |
One would think photographic technique supports a particular style rather than the other way around.
Style comes from taking pictures the way other people do for a while but then deciding to do it different because you like it better. Here is an example:
Head Shots by Michael Graham
This guy is a professional photographer that shoots up-and-coming movie stars using reflected sunlight outside his garage in LA. He is very well known and sought after for his head shots. Notice that the tops of everybody's head is almost always cut off. Who would ever think that would work?
That trait combined with using reflected light defines his style. You just don't decide something like that, it just happens.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 04:35:03 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
...This guy is a professional photographer that shoots up-and-coming movie stars using reflected sunlight outside his garage in LA. He is very well known and sought after for his head shots. Notice that the tops of everybody's head is almost always cut off. Who would ever think that would work?
That trait combined with using reflected light defines his style. You just don't decide something like that, it just happens. |
Michael Graham's work is a great example of a unique style. As Steve pointed out, his portraits just work, despite the decidedly unorthodox framing.
I'm mot sure I agree that such unorthodox style decisions must "just happen," though they certainly can. I'd submit that in any endeavor (artistic or otherwise), if one really learns the fundamentals, understands them at a basic, instinctual level, then it is possible to consciously go places that others might not consider, and know that they will work.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2005 05:25:05 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by nfessel:
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)? |
Hi nfessel
I think your question is very good, I would like to start out saying that tech stuff has nothing to do with how you develop your own personal style.
Now I come to the main subject of your question. To develop one's own style you can't under any circumstance take photos that you think will please others. If you do that, you'll start taking photos of the sunset, flowers and clouds. They have nothing to do with photography, except being visually beautiful. Another thing you need to keep in mind is that photos can be really good, but ugly.
A good beginning to forming your style is to decide at home some motif and then go and try to photograph what you were thinking. Also, when you go photograph whatever subject you want, in bad or good weather, good or bad situations, it's good to have in mind, before you take the photo how you are experiencing the motif. Is the photo supposed to tell a story, to be artistic, B&W, hard or soft, grainy... you have to plan every detail precicely, also focus, DOF, lighting... And when you have taken the photo you have to ask yourself if the outcome is what you wanted or experienced in the moment. If not, the photo has failed. But if you have succeeded, then you'll be very happy and can present the results to others. If the viewers don't like your photo, then who cares?! If you find just one other person (apart from yourself) that likes the photo, then that's a big bonus for you.
This I call my own style and if someone who reads this doesn't agree with me, then I don't care. But if someone understands what I am saying, then I know that at least I and him/her agree on my views on this very cool hobby :)
Icerock |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 11:16:56 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Telehubbie:
What I find interesting about certain people's styles is the pshychology behind their work. I'm not a phychologist by any means, but I find it iteresting when the majority of a persons work is dark or desaturated quite a bit, or to the other end and is always bright and colorful. It would be interesting to hear what some psychologists would say about people's styles. Is the style of some photographers a window into the personality of the photographer? Obviously this would not apply to everybody. Just a thought. |
You are 100 percent right. A window into the personality. Any psychologists want to give a quick evaluation? I could only imagine what I'd be diagnosed with, I don't think I want to know, My shots are always dark, dreary, and sometimes creepy. I love the past just as muc as the future. I love the light just as much as the dark. I don't want to be known as strictly a night time photographer, I love to shoot in daylight also, especially in a nice sun. |
|
|
|
04/11/2005 11:51:09 PM · #50 |
My poetry professor always told me, "The best poems always have the poet in them."
No, she didn't mean the poet acted in the poem or the poem was about the poet but that there was an ASPECT of the poet in the poem. A quality where, if you read enough poetry you could say, "Hey, that's a Frank O'Hara." Or a William Carlos Williams. you get the idea. Give your images you.
d
|
|
