Recently, Charles questioned whether Karsh and Salgado, who seem to have developed very consistent individual styles (obvioulsy very different from each other's), are formulaic. Though I answered saying I think Karsh is formulaic and Salgado is not, I've been thinking about this stuff since then. So many really good photographers have a noticeable style. I would say a strong or distinct voice goes deeper than style, which can at times be just superficial (although it obviously can go deeper with some artists). I think sometimes there's a significant aspect to consistency. Let's take Mapplethorpe, who actually often leaves me cold even as I recognize the importance of his body of work as well as its groundbreaking nature. In treating flowers similarly to the way he treats depictions of sado-masochistic or simply homoerotic scenes and naked male bodies, is he not democratizing photography and beauty to some extent? Are we allowed, through his eyes, to see the beauty in something that up to a point had remained marginalized? Well, that's the good side of his consistent style and strong voice. The style and voice comment, through his body of work, on his subject matter. At the same time, I tend to prefer bodies of work that attempt an array of styles, especially where technique seems tied to content and seems to vary based on the nature of the content and expressive output. So, help me answer this question, which I'm grappling with. For you, when does consistency work and when does it become formulaic and less effective? Seems like authenticity would be a key here.