| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/25/2004 01:13:28 PM · #1 |
I've been into photography for a few years now. I learned technical stuff with my first real camera (Canon Rebel G) before switching over to digital. Besides this site, I have or do spend a lot of time at photo.net, photocritique.net, photosig, and others.
The one thing I notice about myself is that I haven't yet found my niche in photography. I like doing portraits, and nature, and macro, and urban type stuff ... but I'm not really specialized.
For example, I've been here long enough to recognize Jacko's stuff in the voting long before his name is next to it. He's specialized. I envy that. I'd like to be recognized for having a particular style, but I can't figure out what my style is :)
Anyone else think this way, or do you think it's better to be generalized and not known by a certain type of photo (by type I could mean, style, subject, genre, whatever)?
Kris |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 01:19:34 PM · #2 |
I'm not sure it's such a good thing to be "specialized". I guess in some cases it's good to have that "name recognition", where, when you see a picture that looks like a Jacko you know it's going to be a good picture because Jacko takes good pictures. But I tend to prefer the surprises.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 01:24:17 PM · #3 |
I go for the "Jack of all trades" approach with my photography. Of course the second part of that is "master of none"... I definitely gravitate towards macro, landscape and nature/wildlife shots but wouldn't want to call myself purely a landscape photographer or a macro photographer.
As far as style goes, I don't have any ;) Seriously, though, I don't think I shoot with a particular style and I can't say that I would want to be recognized as having a style. I would want to change things up now and again, experiment, find new ways of doing things. I would be bored shooting the same old stuff the same old ways. |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 01:25:58 PM · #4 |
perhaps I shouldn't have used a person on this site as an example (i don't this to a conversation about Jacko). Have a look at this guy's portfolio on photo.net. His name is Rene Asmussen. If you'll notice, all of his stuff has kind of a surreal look to it ... no matter what the subject.
This is more what I mean. |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 01:37:09 PM · #5 |
| That is a pretty cool portfolio. He definitely has a similar style in a lot of his photos. On his landscapes, it looks like he has artificially darkened the skies, either digitally or through darkroom dodging. That style reminds me of a lot of Ansel Adam's landscapes that have stormy skies darker than the land itself which adds a surreal element. |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 01:52:47 PM · #6 |
Personally I would love to have a stylized look. I try but unfortunately fail dismally. It's certainly something to keep learning and trying.
I'm not sure Jacko's work is stylized but he certainly specializes in macro shots, hence why he's macro jacko. I think Heida has a very stylized look as it is often easy to recognise her distinctive finishing and her range of subjects varies a little.
Similiarly the portfolio that was linked to, which is absolutely amazing, is more stylized than specialized as he has a mix of landscape and portraiture. Although the one thing they all have is high impact and a wonderful finishing to his images that give it an amazing surreal look at times. I would love to learn the techniques of how he does it.
Sometimes, however, you just have to shoot what you have available and at least in the beginning it's good to have a wide range of interests and experimentations.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 02:00:55 PM · #7 |
A signature style is a fine thing, I think, which becomes a necessity when presenting a work, an opus.
Specialization is not the first think that comes to my mind when I look at your work, u. Jacko? Sure. He does bugs and other fearsome critters, larger than life. After all, he's Don Macro.
I can tell a Beguin (nine times out of ten) by a sum of characteristics. I can tell pitsaman and a few others by subject, perspective and and post-processing distinctions (saturation, for the most part). I can tell JPR (subject, balance, colour and hue) and David Sidwell (lately, at least, by landscape, treatment and coherence within a series). I can, probably, recognize some of yours, somewhat more often than not by subject, mood and a sort of unassuming charm undiluted by spectacular effects (for lack of better words).
I believe, even great photographers, develop a signature largely via a need to consistently organize, sort and elect certain pieces to fit a presentable form. The process of doing so, of course, is tremendously helpful also for developing a sense of who we are as photographers, what manner and interests we can capture well and, perhaps, better than others.
A vision, I have no doubt, is the inevitable result of deliberate and critical choices we make, not only when shooting but, especially, when integrating our work into an already existing culture or tradition. Rigorous editing (of a whole work), learning to trash that which we like in favour of that which we love, is, perhaps, not a bad way to get there (although... I find getting there alone to be quite a thrill. ;-)
Message edited by author 2004-05-25 14:03:12.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 02:02:28 PM · #8 |
Yeah, I guess it would be OK to have a "look" that's characteristic just to you. But, I think I still prefer surprises. I like variety.
I think that in general most of us are more consistent than we think we are.
EDIT - I've been thinking about this. I guess having a "look" or a signature style would not exclude variety. You could have both. Now, that would be neat!
Message edited by author 2004-05-25 14:08:20.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 02:06:08 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
A signature style is a fine thing, I think, which becomes a necessity when presenting a work, an opus.
|
Interesting. I thought "opus" was strictly a numbering system. Turns out it's a lot more.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 02:11:00 PM · #10 |
I read in an article just a few weeks ago that...
"A good Photographer can photograph every thing."
I believe that to be true. If you are truely good, you can be able to pull off any type of photo.
I have been leaning towards Portraiture lately, but I always get my fix of Landscapes, Wildlife, Stillife, etc...
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 02:12:47 PM · #11 |
i think it all depends on where you want to go with your photography. for artistic work, stylized may be a good thing as it makes your work more easily recognizable. for working with stock agencies, i would think that a range of styles would be more desirable.
i think we will always photographically gravitate to things which we enjoy shooting. after a while of doing this, it may well become your "signature". |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 02:26:17 PM · #12 |
| I think that most successfull artists don't create a style, they just play in the end of the paintbox that they like best and explore the world as they see it. Others see it as a style. You work with the tools you like best and portray the things you think are beautifull (or important) and before you know it you have youself a style. |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 02:35:34 PM · #13 |
I think its good to be eclectic -- and one thing a site like this can get you to do -- try different things.
Just take a look at my profile page page. I'm proud at how varied it is: a flower, an outdorr bug pic, an architectural shot, some children, several abstracts, a bird/mosquito, a landscape, etc. Ok, well none of those have won any ribbons or prizes (yet)
Still, I think it's great to be eclectic!
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 02:51:56 PM · #14 |
a good photographer can, most likely, photograph anything. however, when presenting work the photos as a group will( should ) be complimentary to each other, and not just a mish mosh of different subjects to show photographic versatility.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 03:25:13 PM · #15 |
If you want to be successful, it is good to become known for doing a particular subject, so that when someone needs a shot of that particular subject, they know to come to you. For example I know someone who only shoots polo and he gets called a million times because he is the only respectable polo photographer out there.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 03:34:23 PM · #16 |
On a strictly amateur basis, "for myself" type photography, I think it is important to keep trying to develop all your abilities, but those that you have a real feeling for will probably come forward. I enjoy taking landscape and architectural shots the most, but since I live in (IMHO) a very boring, ugly city and area, I am trying to develop more ability in indoor/still life work. But I am terrible so far. The good thing about the challneges is that you do end up trying new things.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 04:30:08 PM · #17 |
I think one of our challenges today is that there are so many amateur photographers playing in the "generalist" space. If you browse sites like pbase and dpchallenge you find a lot of good photograpy, but after a while it all starts to blend. At that point only the unique, or very good, work grabs your attention. If you then examine the photographer's portfolio you will probably find that they are specialized or have a very specific style. I don't believe anybody has the goal of developing a style, I believe they get focused on results in a specific area and a style develops. Being a generalist is not a bad thing, but I think you have to examine why you enjoy photography and what it will take to achieve your goals.
Message edited by author 2004-05-25 16:31:36.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 05:04:45 PM · #18 |
I think Nusbaum nailed it. I don't think you should go out searching for a style but rather let it find you. I think in the beginning you should experiment with all kinds of photography and over time you will start to gravitate more to the subjects you like best and a particular style will begin to emerge. Sometimes a person won't think they have a style but others will point it out to them. Just experiment and do what you like and eventually you will have your own unique look.
T
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 07:48:34 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I think its good to be eclectic -- and one thing a site like this can get you to do -- try different things.
Just take a look at my profile page page. I'm proud at how varied it is: a flower, an outdorr bug pic, an architectural shot, some children, several abstracts, a bird/mosquito, a landscape, etc. Ok, well none of those have won any ribbons or prizes (yet)
Still, I think it's great to be eclectic! |
Hence my username :)
But I sometimes think it would be nice to maybe have more quality and less variety -- that recent "Something New" was a tough very topic for me.
Message edited by author 2004-05-25 19:48:57. |
|
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: 06/12/2025 08:54:17 AM EDT.
