| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/10/2012 09:45:59 AM · #1 |
...as in "what your signature style is". Has anyone dealt with/struggled with that question? How do you define yourself as a photographer and how did you come to that evaluation? Jan. 2010 had the Signature Style challenge which got me thinking "just what the hell is my style?" I had no answer then and I still have no true answer now. The more time passes the more that question just bothers me. On one of my old business cards I had "Scenic Landscapes, Nature, Conceptual & Digital Artistry". The new one now just has "Fine Art Prints and Digital Artistry".
Is it good/not good to have a 'signature style'? I know that one can change styles - heck, Van Gogh and other artists had shifts in style or phases. Or is it truly better to be a 'Jack of All Trades'? Help, I am looking for some insight. |
|
|
|
01/10/2012 10:10:26 AM · #2 |
| 8 out of 10 of my challenge entries are quickly guessed by some voters. Partly subject matter related, partly site longevity, but in general, I present images in my unique, consistent, documentary way. I'm probably not going to change anytime soon, unless a new camera body somehow changes my signature style. A recognizable style is not a good thing in challenges, as it gets in the way of people assessing an image on its own merits. I have actually attempted to change my style, but to no avail. And, when I deviate from "my style", my scores plummet. So, I'm stuck with who I am. I do try to participate in most of the challenges here in the hope that my range of skills will expand, but alas, my sig style follows me like a sinister shadow. |
|
|
|
01/10/2012 10:21:16 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
8 out of 10 of my challenge entries are quickly guessed by some voters. Partly subject matter related, partly site longevity, but in general, I present images in my unique, consistent, documentary way. I'm probably not going to change anytime soon, unless a new camera body somehow changes my signature style. A recognizable style is not a good thing in challenges, as it gets in the way of people assessing an image on its own merits. I have actually attempted to change my style, but to no avail. And, when I deviate from "my style", my scores plummet. So, I'm stuck with who I am. I do try to participate in most of the challenges here in the hope that my range of skills will expand, but alas, my sig style follows me like a sinister shadow. |
i don't think that changing your style is what made your scores plummet as you put it. i think it's the fact that you haven't found another "thing" that you are as passionate about to keep your scores up. |
|
|
|
01/10/2012 10:41:27 AM · #4 |
I think this is something that evolves. If you try to define a style for yourself and conform to it -- well, this sounds like an unnecessarily limiting exercise. Not to mention an awful lot of pressure! Like many things, the harder you try the less likely it is to come. And if it doesn't come, why force it? No shame in being a jack of all trades.
Just my thoughts over a burnt bagel... |
|
|
|
01/10/2012 10:49:37 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by bvy:
I think this is something that evolves. If you try to define a style for yourself and conform to it -- well, this sounds like an unnecessarily limiting exercise. Not to mention an awful lot of pressure! Like many things, the harder you try the less likely it is to come. And if it doesn't come, why force it? No shame in being a jack of all trades.
Just my thoughts over a burnt bagel... |
Must've been a bagel filled with good thoughts. |
|
|
|
01/10/2012 10:56:14 AM · #6 |
| I don't think it's a bad thing to not have a style. I think though, it might be a bad thing if there isn't something, one thing at least, that really, really makes you happy to shoot. Many things making you happy could only be a good thing. |
|
|
|
01/10/2012 11:46:39 AM · #7 |
| I am constantly amazed by DPCers who can pick out someone's "style" in a heartbeat. Many have said I have a recognizable "style", but for the life of me, I couldn't tell you what that is, as I am never intentionally shooting in any one way. I think content/subject is often confused for "style", and suspect that is the case with me (i.e. pet portraits). But no, I don't think having a style is a "bad" thing - it's just the way you look at/interpret the world, regardless of what you are looking at. |
|
|
|
01/10/2012 12:07:05 PM · #8 |
| I don't feel I have a "style" of my own but I also look at what I "like" that others do and find no trend there either. Maybe it works both ways? |
|
|
|
01/10/2012 12:24:00 PM · #9 |
Aren't we going too fast? Style? Hell no, let's take good pictures only and the rest comes on its own.
Nowadays all artists want a style from the first moment. And we end up with gobs of clichees and uninspired work. Picasso had no use for style and yet, his hand is recognizable, the way the specific sound is recognizable for musicians or singers. In photography there is a certain way of seeing.
Johanna is right I think content/subject is often confused for "style"
|
|
|
|
01/10/2012 01:03:17 PM · #10 |
| Often not aware of what is our style, like tanguera. I was surprised in the 2010 challenge to be recognized, since all I did was choose a recent pic that I liked. (OK, so it was dark, and there was a dog, but I never think "Let me go out today and shoot a dark picture of a dog;" surely that would be limiting as mariuca says. Although, now that I think of it, I do live in rain forest popular with dogs: tnun does hahn? |
|
|
|
01/10/2012 01:16:59 PM · #11 |
| Having a style makes perfect sense to me, I think everybody has one. In all our photos, we seek to say something. It's that message that unifies them. A scene is a typical scene until the photographer takes it and crafts it to fit their vision, to say what they want it to say, to speak how they wish. If this weren't true, there would be no photography, because it's all objects we've seen before in one sense or another. Your style comes out in the photos that mean something to you, in those images you want to speak loudest, those you take a stake in the words uttered. You can be all over the place entry wise and still have a super unified style. It doesn't make you better or worse, maybe you have lots of different things to say, that's fine too. I struggled with the same issue for awhile, wondering if I did or not. The images I've made that really are notable to me, I think they say something, but it's excellent to go and utter some nonsense every now and again to reshuffle the cards. |
|
|
|
01/11/2012 12:04:04 PM · #12 |
| I can see both sides of the coin that having a style can be limiting/constricting yourself as oppossed to exploring 'free range' so that you keep your artistic vision open to any and all possiblities. Years ago I found myself doing a lot of conceptual insect photography but stopped myself because I did not want to only be recognized for that specific type of work. I branched out and tried several different avenues. I guess I am just struggling to define myself in that comfortable 'in-between' where I feel I have some direction or unifying 'theme' to my work. I guess that is part of the journey that you evolve and also change directions over time. It's just right now that I once again feel I am at a crossroads.. |
|
|
|
01/12/2012 12:04:42 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by mariuca:
Aren't we going too fast? Style? Hell no, let's take good pictures only and the rest comes on its own.
|
I think that is where I am right now. Being new to this, I just want to take great pictures and I'll just have to figure out my style as it happens/develops. |
|
|
|
01/12/2012 01:00:05 PM · #14 |
Can anyone give me a name of a photographer who is known for having no signature style?
To be known, as in a known photographer, don't you have to be known for something? Just askin'.
Except for Madonna, who seems to known mainly for wanting to be known.
Message edited by author 2012-01-12 13:02:19. |
|
|
|
01/12/2012 01:11:41 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by bvy:
I think this is something that evolves. If you try to define a style for yourself and conform to it -- well, this sounds like an unnecessarily limiting exercise. Not to mention an awful lot of pressure! Like many things, the harder you try the less likely it is to come. And if it doesn't come, why force it? No shame in being a jack of all trades. |
Yes. Pressure gets in the way, and conforming will stop the evolution you describe. Style does not need to be a finalized algorithm, nurture your preferences technique, subject, etc. I believe in this manner you will typically find a piece of your past work, and choices, in your present images. To me, this represents style. |
|
|
|
01/12/2012 01:25:10 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Can anyone give me a name of a photographer who is known for having no signature style?
To be known, as in a known photographer, don't you have to be known for something? Just askin'.
Except for Madonna, who seems to known mainly for wanting to be known. |
I don't know that I have a signature style -- or if it's just a signature subject. Is there a difference?
It would be interesting to put it to the test.
There are three challenges in voting. I have entries in two. I wonder if anyone could guess my entries because of my "style". If anyone wants to try, you'd have to leave comments on the image, since we can't discuss it in voting.
But it would be a interesting test, to see if people can guess people's photos on a "non-signature" style challenge. |
|
|
|
01/12/2012 01:44:36 PM · #17 |
| I think it would help me to understand what photographic styles are and to know some defined examples. Can we turn this conversation into actually stating your style and show examples of that style? It would also be helpful to name others styles. |
|
|
|
01/14/2012 10:03:39 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I don't know that I have a signature style -- or if it's just a signature subject. Is there a difference?
It would be interesting to put it to the test.
There are three challenges in voting. I have entries in two. I wonder if anyone could guess my entries because of my "style". If anyone wants to try, you'd have to leave comments on the image, since we can't discuss it in voting.
But it would be a interesting test, to see if people can guess people's photos on a "non-signature" style challenge. |
Hmmm- not so much signature style but signature subject.....interesting.
Originally posted by EL-ROI:
I think it would help me to understand what photographic styles are and to know some defined examples. Can we turn this conversation into actually stating your style and show examples of that style? It would also be helpful to name others styles. |
Well let's take the In the style of: Librodo who is instantly recognized for his portraiture of woman and people on the street or In the style of: Nixter which is shapes, moments in time, and street captures in B&W primarily. And then there is In the Style of: Heida , In the Style of: Sherpet and In the style of: bspurgeon.
But does it really come down to 'style' or 'subject' as  vawendy mentioned and then earlier what  hahn23 spoke of his 'subject' style being recognized. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/28/2025 12:51:59 PM EDT.
