Drawing out your style - meant as a discussion

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>I have recently been on vacation and had some time to think about where my style is headed. So, it occured to me to scan a group of my peers work to see what is happening in the broader scene. What I found is that many are heading toward sameness, and even working hard to "copy" ideas from those who appear successful. No surprise there I guess.</p>

<p>Any how, as someone who truly values uniqueness in style, I want to ask what you do to define and redefine your style?<br>

To wit:<br>

I currently force myself to look harder for ways to have my images be more dramatic but without too much involved lighting/posing. One of the ways I approach this is to get in a place that makes the perspective unusual, and to use an unexpected FOV from that vantage point. I know that is probably part of how many others do things, but if you have always shot this way or that, what do you do to generate new and interesting looks and draw out your unique perpsective as time goes by?</p>

[mbbrown]

<p>Funny you posted this; I'm in a situation in which I am currently serving a very conservative area in the midwest, but about to relocate my business to Palm Beach, Florida during the "down season" later this Fall. I have been doing oodles and gobs of market research for the past year (since I knew we were going to make the move) and what I have found, among tens of thousands of other tidbits, is that my current style that seems to be very well received up here in Ohio might not be down in a wealthy, progressive area like Palm Beach.</p>

<p>My style has evolved over years and years. It evolves with a combination of my client's input as well as a more direct, purposeful "branding" of, not just my photographic style, but my presentation style...my style of doing business...my marketing style.</p>

<p>I, for so long, have purposely stayed off forums like this. I've intentionally NOT went to other photographer's websites. I don't want to fall into the groove, so to speak. But I have lately because I need to be aware of what's going on out there. Doesn't mean I'm going to do what everyone else is doing, but I need to give myself a running chance at being looked upon as a serious contender in what is a very heavily saturated market in Florida.</p>

<p>My style isn't defined by any one aspect. While I can attach descriptors to it like, "minimalistic, organic, atmospheric..." I can't go to a wedding, or a portrait session, with such directives. Weddings play themselves out. I am there to capture the visual narrative of how I saw it. A finished product is my vision of how I saw a B&G's day, represented in a way that I feel, based on knowing them, they would find most meaningful.</p>

<p>Now I'm faced with new competition, new styles, new locations, new trends. And I have to thoroughly examine how to proceed. Somewhere between the stubborness of never changing and following every new fad lies the answer.</p>

<p>But, all that said, I've been doing this so long (26 years) that my core style is very much just part of who I am. So I don't anticipate a "rebirth" of sorts. I think, for the most part, I'll learn and grow along the way.</p>

<p>Lastly, I'd like to add that I think, in many cases, too much emphasis is placed on photographic style. Yeah, you have to be good, but I've spent more time looking at new, creative marketing strategies than other photographer's portfolios. I'm a "career" photog. This is my full-time gig, and I need for it to continue to be, so it's also important to define what defines you beyond your photographic style.</p>

<p>Just my humble opinion.</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>That's a good observation.</p>

<p>I don't look for inspiration from other wedding photographers. In fact, I think the moment you start doing that you're well on the road to sameness. I can think of maybe half a dozen well-known photographers whose work looks completely interchangeable. The concept of a signature style seems to have been diluted over the last two or three years. In fact, most wedding photographs today tend to look like they were taken by Kevin Kubota, regardless of who was behind the camera.</p>

<p>Speaking personally, I draw upon what motivates my personal work and make sure it's included in large amounts in my commercial work. And as far as is practical or possible, I look at what others are doing and try to do the opposite. And I continually reevaluate where I am and where my competitors are, and try to readjust where I can so that I'm always just a little bit different from the next person.</p>

[mbbrown]

<p>See, and I'm like, "Who is Kevin Kubota?" which kind of pleases me to not know, quite frankly. I'm trusting my education and experience to guide me. This is not an easy business to make a living in if you're a full-timer, like I am, and, if you are, then you must be doing something right.</p>

<p>Even if you can't directly pinpoint what it is.</p>

<p>...I keep telling myself. :-)</p>

[francie_baltazar]

<p>I study others photographers like I have looked to the great masters when studing art. Not only do I look at who is hot now, but who are the greats and what makes them great... what I see in the greats is that they all have "a point of view." A vision as to what they want their photographs to represent. I studied art and photography - my art was always really bright and of images close up... I began my pro photography career doing Macro photography... closely cropped, higly saturated, sharply focused... my portraits and wedding tend to style reflect this. I have been known to lop off tops of heads and move in tightly to get to see the eyes when doing portraits... and I move out to provide the whole picture. Most of my images are highly saturated and I work very hard to make sure the are spot on focus... this is my vision for myself as a photographer and it is ever evolving...</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"I'd like to add that I think, in many cases, too much emphasis is placed on photographic style." -DW</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Agreed. I think there is a lot to be said for solid, well exposed images that are in focus. I also think that style is too frequently cited as a defense for sloppy craftsmanship.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>I hear you David. <br>

I would add that style is often neglected when someone who can work well technically has not really developed their style, or else has a style they are not really aware of.</p>

<p>As for me, I would be happy to have a well defined style in favor of great craftsmanship, biut hope to achieve both to some extent.</p>

[betty_lowrey2]

<p>I don't think there can ever be too much emphasis on style.<br>

Without a style all your own, you might as well just be shooting at a WalMart center. What is the fun of being in the business we are in without developing a creative style?<br>

I've seen a lot of photographers that have spot-on exposed images, in focus, all that but would I ever in a million years hire them to document something like a wedding? A very important day that lends itself to really playing up the bride and groom's personality? Sorry...no. Honestly, style-less photography that is very staid and controlled reminds me of 1989 posey wedding photography...which I don't think anyone is after. Because it's boring. And simple. I cringe when someone wants me to set up a tripod and do posed church pictures, honestly.....It reminds me of shooting a prom picture. But I do it, because it's my job. But, I delight in the freedom to really do what comes naturally to me: wing it! Play in to the vibe of who I am shooting. Come up with ideas on the fly and see if they work. Turn off my flash, set the camera on a table, and try to do something colorful and dragging with dancers on the floor.</p>

<p>Francie is right...the "greats" all have a point of view. Honestly, I'd rather my pictures be considered sloppy than boring. Just my opinion.</p>

 

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>I think there is a lot to be said for solid, well exposed images that are in focus. I also think that style is too frequently cited as a defense for sloppy craftsmanship.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think there's nothing to be said for solid, well exposed images that are in focus. To my mind that's the least interesting benchmark that could ever be offered for an image. And I really hope that craftsmanship is a lot more than just getting the image in focus and exposed correctly, because that's a very unambitious goal in my opinion.</p>

<p>Few photographers have a signature style but the ones who do are recognisable instantly. Consider Helmet Newton, Elliott Erwitt, Guy Bourdin, David LaChapelle. You can pick their images out of lineup of 100 others and you'll never be confused about which is whose. (And yes, they're exposed correctly and in focus, though I'm sure no one would ever think that was interesting enough to mention).</p>

<p>Style should not be confused with execution. And good execution has never been cited as an excuse for absence of style.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"Speaking personally, I draw upon what motivates my personal work........ And as far as is practical or possible, I look at what others are doing and try to do the opposite. And I continually reevaluate where I am and where my competitors are, and try to readjust where I can so that I'm always just a little bit different from the next person." -Neil</em><br>

<em></em><br>

So would you call your "style" oppositional? I also completely agree that style should not be confused with execution.....that was my point.</p>

 

[mbbrown]

<p>Let me clarify the "too much emphasis on style" comment I made.</p>

<p>I'm not saying no emphasis should be placed on it, but successful wedding photogs have to balance defining a style with marketing and bookkeeping and client relations and post production and...I could go on and on.</p>

<p>Yes, we all need a distinctive style. But if we agonize over finding one, and then resting our laurels on said style, we will miss out on the 10,000 other things we need to be good at as successful wedding photographers.</p>

<p>It's a balancing act. I contend my style of doing business is part of my global style; how I interact with clients, how I answer e-mails and the phone. How I dress at a wedding. My professionalism. These things are all part of my style.</p>

<p>Believing that good photographic style without regard for business will make you successful is like thinking throwing a bullet hard enough will kill someone.</p>

<p>Having said that, I do believe one needs to be a good photographer first, then build on that.</p>

<p> </p>

[kiva]

<p>Focus and exposure is not a style, imo ... they serve us well as a matter of operation; they are technical and they are very interesting but not always can they be defined as important above all other concerns. Focus and exposure are part of the cake; they are not the cake. They are "tools" used to express a viewpoint and they are best mastered as early on in the photography process as possible yet some would say that the photography process has many more levels to travel after the technical aspects are absorbed and integrated to a comfortable level for each photographer.</p>

<p>My evolving thoughts on style: Style is establishing your personality and technical skills into a "look" that pleases the photographer first with full hopes that it attracts the eye (the artistic sweet spot) of a bridal couple that shares in a vision of a similar style fitting their personalities on the wedding day. Style is more in the "seeing" of light (or, sometimes applying additional light) and the adjustments made in the viewfinder in composing a shot.</p>

<p>In addition: Style is not limited, imo, to the camera and processing but it has a lot to do with the personality of the photographer and how they "engage" and "attach" to a wedding day celebration.</p>

<p>I recall a thread here on photo.net a while back when Marc Williams asked to see photos that were Not technical miracles and therefore would "normally" be tossed out but it was hard to do that because the image file captured something special. The thread was interesting because it got beyond the items like focus / exposure and it urged people to see beyond similar technical matters in an attempt to see a photograph from a clients viewpoint of the emotional realm ... <strong>it pointed out, to me, that we (photographers) often times view with technical eyes only and need to keep our emotional / spiritual / style eyes open for other "important" elements in a photograph.</strong> Our "assessment" may be wrong but if it's born of our "style" then the client becomes the ultimate judge.</p>

[pete_s.]

I believe your beliefs and decisions you've made IS your style. What you like and what you dislike, the choices you made regarding equipment, what you look at and decide to shoot, how you shoot it...basically everything.

 

 

 

So everybody has a unique style because we are all unique. However that doesn't mean you have a distinctive style, something that makes you easily identifiable.

 

 

 

To have a distictivly identifiable style you would have to be different and to be that you have to make choices that most don't and like things or pursue thing that others may not.

 

 

 

I think the technical aspects of photography is very much a part of your style since it's influenced by your taste, methods and tools.

[shawn_mertz]

<p>Usually my style evaluations have brought me back to the basics. Using less lighting, concentrating more on finding natural occurring moments than posed.<br>

This gets more difficult all the time. Specifically getting ready photos, I am seeing subjects trying to act natural instead of being natural. <br>

Also I have been working at using some of the amazing new flash technology to mimic existing light photos.</p>