Your personal style? Where did it come from?

I have been spending some time looking at my portfolio and there is so much variety, no continuity of style. Many

of the most-known artists develop a personal style which can be recognized at first sight. Some of my favorite

photographers on this site have a unique touch that sort of defines their work. Just wondering what others'

thoughts were on this subject. I apologize for not doing a search.... just wanted some current comments.

Think about what you are really passionate about. Usually, when people shoot passionately they tend to have a certain

consistency of vision, even as they are very creative and diverse. You may be passionate about taking photos but can

you break it down further. Is the variety keeping you from opening up to a certain level of intimacy with something inside

that's uniquely you and that will move you? Certainly, in variety there can be a lot of creativity. But focusing on where

you want to be and what really, really moves you might lead you in the direction you want to go. I think there are great

artists and photographers who utilize a variety of styles. I think you might more be looking at and hoping for a

consistency of vision. A voice.

 

Why do you take photos?

Im not sure I have a "style" I'm so new to the world of Photography I don't think I have developed one yet. Except for that personally unique way I have of shooting with the wrong aperture in harsh sunshine ;^) I know what you mean though sometimes I look at a photo and I know whose it is before looking at the name of the Photographer.

Amy, this is a topic very personal to me. Some can never achieve the "look" that is personal and distinguishes his work. I have spent many years looking for that "look" and even bringing the new me and the new "look" to a new level. It is never going to happen. I can copy and imitate. I can even improve upon. That "look" for me soon becomes boring. Too confined. So, I will produce whatever I feel like. I have resigned myself to producing images as I please with no personal stigma. I like that. I quit worrying about it.

I went through a number of cameras, lenses, and subjects before I found what I really appreciated. That's not to say that I only photograph cityscapes and urban decay, but it is where I find myself. That may have something to do with my surroundings as much as anything else; Birmingham doesn't provide for a great deal of awe-inspiring landscape. But I am always seeing things "through a viewfinder" regardless of my locale or situation. JR

Style is a result of any of the two following:

 

1) It may happen by chance. Something strikes you, leading to experimentation and eventually a style based on that.

 

2) it may be the result of a well reasoned, developed approach, based on whatever data/input you place into that equation.

 

Those are the only two seeds I know of that can create a 'style'.

If I have a personal style, it had to come from stumbling my way through life with a camera, but I can't recognize it myself. I've never really worried about a personal style because I've shot almost everything but weddings at one time or another. I just give it a try and practice until I'm satisfied with the result. It's allowed me to get inside the client's head to give them what they wanted.

I think I have a style, but not sure how I got it and it's probably evolving so maybe it will be different in a year or two- I don't know. I just like to shoot in certain ways and am drawn to certain angles and images so maybe that's where it comes from? Also- maybe editing out things that i don't think are my "style"? Interesting to think about...

My personal style came from looking at photographs, at least 100 000 of them. Once I decided what kind of photographs I liked the next step was learning how to make them. Once that knowledge is in place all that remains is to keep making those photographs. That's personal style.

 

The alternative was learning what kind of photographs other people like, that I might hate, and doing those. But then I may as well be a professional photographer whose style necessarily adapts to every clients preferences.

My style has evolved based on my chosen subject matter (friends and family), working methods (handheld, available light),

and materials (B&W film), which, taken together, favor certain equipment choices (fast lenses, ergonomic/quick-operating

film cameras), which in turn, suggest certain techniques ( selective focus at wide apertures, close working distances). Add

to the above logical progression some of my personal preferrences, such as candid work over posed/formal work, isolation of

my subjects as opposed to more environmental compositions, and so on, and the end result is what could be called my

personal style. I would define it as the logical consequence of my artistic choices, or, function follows form, with apologies to

Mr. Sullivan. I'm not sure it's even important for an amateur like me, but it does lend some continuity to my family album.

I wonder if photographers have a style or the photographs they produce have a "look". Take Dave Hill, for example. Is the

images he's famous for his style? Does he only shoot and process images like that or do clients use him because they

want the look of his photographs in their campaign or whatever it might be for?

 

I think a photographer would only have a style if they shot one particular type of image.. urban, or landscape or portraits.

Surely if a photographer shot a portrait and then a landscape image, the style from one subject to the other would be

impossible to reproduce simply because of the massive difference in subject?

Mas Tequila, helps me. I worked in a newspaper with 5 other photographers and I could tell you who shot what about 90%

of the time. Everyone approaches a subject little differently when shooting. This almost like finger print. Styles change as

time goes on and reflects how a photographer approaches his work. There is also personal style and marketable style.

These can be two different things. Style is one part technique, one part artistic vision and one part luck.

Interesting comments all. Several months ago I was reading on the wedding forum, taking particular notice of the requests to critique a wedding and one group of images made a huge impression on me. After reviewing his images, 30-40 or so, I was taken by the familiarness of one image to the next. I couldn't put my finger on it but others noticed it as well. He eventually commented that he had processed each image the same with, among other things, a slight color tone. While technicalities don't equate style, the way images are processed, whether it be haphazard or very intentional, seem to dictate the style that is interpreted.

Ralph, don't we all want that fingerprint? That's an awesome description- very inspiring!

Amy, I think style comes from experience, technique, and taste--it's something that is reflective of your own

passion. For some, the passion is sports, some landscapes, some black-and-whites, some digital alterations, etc.

I guess all you can do is find your passsion and refine your technique in order to translate it into a form that others

can appreciate. I'm still looking for my "style" too. While I love sports and am comfortable on the sidelines, I've tried

to go outside my comfort zone in order to grow and learn better techniques. By doing this, I've found that I also enjoy

finding obscure, overlooked, everyday things and working to make them stand on their own. I have a long way to go,

but isn't life a journey--an adventure?

<i>Your personal style? Where did it come from? </i><P>My style comes from a dark and dank part of my brain, warped by shooting men beating each other to a pulp and women taking their clothes off. It results from careless shooting and meticulous post-processing to create a homogeneous portrait of the riots around me. And maybe from shooting mostly at night. Every now and then some spiritual stuff creeps in, but I really avoid places where nothing ever happens (ref. Talking Heads.)

jeff, i liked the talking heads. or are you a talking head? whatever happened to them?

Style comes from a unity of vision and control over your technique. Many photographers whose images are immediately

recognizable have left a body of work that says something or shows facets of the same thing in a similar range of focal length,

palette and even perspective. Look at Bill Owens' series "Suburbia" and "Leisure" for example. The photos are taken in a

straightforward, almost bland perspective. Taken together they are both funny and poignant. The same is true for a very

different photographer, Alex Webb of Magnum. His work is exclusively in color, exclusively in 35mm, exclusively in

Kodachrome, yet although it is composed of many different subjects, the commonality is his use of complex framing. I think

that once you figure out what you are trying to say-- as opposed to trying to emulate pictures you have seen elsewhere, your

own style may come through.

<i>whatever happened to them?</i><p>Jerry Harrison is here in San Francisco, he works with a lot of new musicians. I met him a few years ago through Bernie Worrell, but never see him on the street. David Byrne is still recording and will tour with Brian Eno this year. Chris Frantz and Tina Weymouth seem to have retired.

To quote the great philosopher Lone Watie: "All I have is a piece of hard rock candy. But it's not for eatin'. It's just for lookin' through."

 

Everything looks sweet and tasty now. Like brains to a zombie.

Lex, okay I'm dense. whatever do you mean?

Step 1. Photograph what you like, how you like it...

If you dont like the results repeat step 1.

Well, Sam Norris has one of the most stylized portfolios I have ever seen. I don't know if that applies to the rest of his work though. One woman on this forum characterized the my work as an interest in decay. I didn't see that coming. Maybe our style has to be characterized by our critics.

Saying you don't have a style is like saying you don't have an accent.

 

Just as with your verbal accent, we all have a visual accent or style that is created in the social and cultural setting that we inhabit, together with our own individual experiences.

 

It's really tough to escape our personal and cultural styles. I know that I spent so many years taking photographs as documentation that it is really hard for me to break out of that approach.

Alastair: "I think a photographer would only have a style if they shot one particular type of image.. urban, or landscape or portraits. Surely if a photographer shot a portrait and then a landscape image, the style from one subject to the other would be impossible to reproduce simply because of the massive difference in subject?"

 

I don't agree....

A still life http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6877586-lg.jpg

another still or product shot http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7686771-lg.jpg

A portrait http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7036097-lg.jpg

A nature shot http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6954077-lg.jpg

Architecture http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6652182-lg.jpg

and another http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6649864-lg.jpg

Don't know a category for this one http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6722373-lg.jpg

Landscape http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6776069-lg.jpg

 

I think there is a connecting style to all these different subjects, and I thinks it's my style starting to come out. Maybe I'm delusional though, and it's all in my head! But I like shooting a range of subjects using similar techniques.