How long did it take you to find your style?

[john_a5]

<p>There are a lot of good entries here. My own sense, which agrees and disagrees with various things here and there above, is that style is more of a core value, if you will. It isn't something we fully control and it isn't something that just changes on a whim. It is something that was developed over our lifetime without our attention being given to it. It is like the old saying, your true self always shows when you are under stress, and I think we can disguise or hide our style momentarily, but it is always laying there in its true form.</p>

<p>This doesn't preclude growth and evolution of style. In photography, I think there are several impediments to one's style being fully realized.</p>

<p>The first one is just learning to see with the camera and learning to manage the frame. Until we can do this, we can't transact any sense of vision and style just can't come through. Most of the time you just end up with a shot of some thing within the borders of the frame until these things are mastered.</p>

<p>The second thing, and an early impediment, is caught up in the ideas of emulation and accolades. We need to figure things out (technical and aesthetic) and we often copy others and the work we have seen that we liked. We are also susceptible to accolades from friends and now photo sharing sites, which can plant us doing work in a way or style that isn't really who we are. Seeing our own style is more limited because the images are made after someone else's style. The whole idea of accolades can even plant advanced workers in a specific spot if they buy into it. It was famously said that Jasper John's gallery owner wanted him to keep making Bulls Eyes or Flags (one of the two) because they were so popular.</p>

<p>I did like Michael Chang's suggestion that passion is a key in developing style. I think that having true passion for what you are shooting pushes one through the external influences that can hold us back from really discovering our own style. I agree with Gordon that style is independent of subject, but I do think that it is hard to have the same passion for everything. The passion doesn't have to be subject based either, it can be more about the idea of content rather than form. You are passionate about telling something specific with your work. Essentially, I think it is passion that can be a catalyst for moving to our core and overcoming those external pulls that keep us from going deeper.</p>

<p>As to technique, I do think people often confuse technique for style but technique can often be part of style. I think John Ellingson suggested that one created a unique look to get work. This was often technique based, but the best also had an underlying style to which the technique was overlaid. Any given look, if too unique, generally loses favor over time or is copied and becomes cliche (polaroid transfers, the Hosemaster light painting etc). The photographers who had longevity were either never tied to a specific look or were able to move quickly into something new when the trends changed. Having an underlying style was key to that success. Avedon had a pretty simple technique that was an integral part of his style. Back in the early 80's, Frank Goelke had a way of printing his black and white work that was totally different than those working in the Western Landscape tradition and somewhat indicative of his style. Linda Connor's purplish, Printing Out Paper 8x10 contact prints were part of her style for decades, until the material vanished--her style still comes through in her large digital prints she makes today. Technique isn't style.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Just wanted to offer a twist in this discussion or maybe a twisted POV, but I notice quite a few photographers that have built a reputation from their style have attained their notoriety with shots taken in exotic hard to reach locations around the world compared to most folks.</p>

<p>And there are others that mysteriously and consistently are able to capture a slew of "lucky" shots that all have a sameness (brand like) about them with regards to unusual compositions and subjects that seem to defy the laws of randomness in nature. Not sure if it's been setup or staged and if that in itself constitutes part of the style. Some of their work even becomes iconic due to this.</p>

<p>I look around my local area where I live and I don't find these extremely dynamic "lucky" compositions especially in street or walk around photography. Style in landscapes of course are primarily determined by location, location, location. They are what they are and so can't really be considered an integral part of the photographer's style outside of composition and color.</p>

<p>I'm not saying this of all photographers that have developed a indelible style. It's just I'm never quite sure or know when and how to separate the style from the actual subject they were able to capture due to them being in the right place at the right time.</p>

<p>IOW is being at the right place at the right time considered part of a photographer's style?</p>

 

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Here's an example of a photographer, Mike Dixon, who's a PN member that I find has unusually consistent dynamism/style in his portfolio...</p>

<p>http://mikedixonphotography.net/galleries.htm</p>

<p>I look around my community and I never find any subjects that offer the same dynamism and poignancy. I've looked, REALLY LOOKED! I'm a former art director and illustrator. I've developed an eye for this stuff. Trust me. </p>

<p>For instance a while back I went to my first event, a wine tasting festival, which took place in our local downtown. So I had the chance to do some street and event photography due to the casual dress of folks, walking about, browsing and conversing with each other. As I looked around I couldn't find anything that looked as interesting as in Mike's or other's galleries.</p>

<p>The most I could do was change the angle of view by sitting on the curb and just start people watching and panning around looking for interesting compositions. Nothing! I get bupkis! Out of frustration I just started seeking out compositions I've seen in other photographer's portfolios of similar events, basically copying from memory. See below one of the "I give up, so I'll just shoot this" kind of shots. I had to ask myself if that constitutes part of my style. I don't see a style in that shot.</p>

<p>So I have to wonder, is being at the right place at the right time part of the style? Is the subject part of the style? </p><div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>And here's another trend concerning ownership/development of a photographer's style.</p>

<p>The few places I've found interesting to photograph in my local town are made interesting by the owners/proprietors/caretakers of such places. They've sort of "dolled up" the area in the form of renovation, restoration and urban renewal or placed interesting/unusual objects/subjects that lend themselves for interesting photography.</p>

<p>What I'm getting from the gist of their behavior on letting me photograph their establishment is that they want to be considered as part of the creation using a sort of backhanded comment of wanting to be included in the credits of the image itself. They want copies of what I shoot of their place. </p>

<p>How does a photographer assert ownership of whatever style that may be derived from those kinds of images?</p>

<p> </p>

[rossb]

<p> I don't have a style. I just shoot and then fake it up in photoshop like everybody else.</p>

[don_essedi]

"i feel something is missing, as if im not truely connecting with the scenes i am photographing"

 

John, I haven't read the other replies, so this may have been discussed, but what about photographing what you do connect with?

[linda_jones1]

<p>Tim and Ross, love your truthful comments. ;) Yes, agree that some make it look effortless. But many occasions took alot of time and preparation to achieve the shot, it just doesn't look like it!. I know what I do takes hours of work, driving and hiking. Many times people say wow how lucky you are! Which kind of annoys me when I've put practically full time hours into my work.<br>

Granted a safari or a trip to an exotic place will "improve" your luck. Like you, I am not as impressed if the subject area just requires a plane ticket. But sometimes a plane ticket or a drive will spur on the creative juices too! Keep in mind most of these things are well planned. Judges don't usually consider that difference, and the shooting styles chosen are very trendy.</p>

<p>I knew an artist that photographed B&Ws and then painted her felt energy on the photos. That, to me is incredibly creative. So I don't necessarily award people who engage in easy work. Nor do I follow in the footsteps of others. To me that is not awarding at all.<br>

Bottom line, there are a zillion photographers out there nowadays, so be prepared to tire of it all! One day we will have seen everything, thnx to the net.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Good points which I totally agree, linda.</p>

<p>"Everything under the sun has already been done before''-Ecclesiastes 1:9 http://bible.cc/ecclesiastes/1-9.htm</p>

<p>Good grief that was said nearly 5000 years ago and yet we still like to think we can come up with something different and new. I guess hope really does spring eternal, right?</p>

<p>We might as well admit it, we really like our own stuff and no one else's. uh...I'll credit George Carlin for that one?</p>

<p> </p>

[john_elder1]

<p>To a great extent, you make your own luck through hard work.</p>

 

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Are you implying I'm a lazy photographer, John? :)</p>

<p>By which you'ld have to assume if I or anyone else has no style, we must be lazy. I don't think it's as simple as you put it IMO.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>There is no such thing as no style. In fact, I think someone once said, no style is a style.</p>

<p>As I said above, I believe that everyone has a style and every style is different but that doesn't mean each person's style is fully developed/expressed or that their innate style is totally unique. In fact, many probably share very similar styles. It is like we all walk but many times we can recognize someone a block away just from how they walk even when it is just something very subtle that someone who didn't know the person would never distinguish as different.</p>

<p>Finding one's style doesn't mean it will be different than everyone elses and thus we might see it as not having a style, but I think it is impossible to not have a style of any sort. You see in your way even if it is a shared vision.</p>

[GBarrington]

<p>Overall, an artist's life, (or anyone's life, really) is a process through time and is not a point in time. Life is all about transition and adaptation. It is only others, with a need to classify and sort someone else's life into styles and periods that define a style. I don't believe an artist, or a motorcycle mechanic, can really be objective about his or her 'style', he or she, is just too close to it; too aware of the ebb and flow of influence that steers his/her life. Did Picasso ever really consider his "Blue Period" while he was in the act of creating art?<br>

I don't think it HURTS for an artist to speculate about his 'style', but I also don't see how it can help either, since 'style' exists outside the process.</p>

[johncrosley]

<p>I have more than one 'style', but my first love is 'street'.</p>

<p>But please compare this photo (linked) from my first roll of film ever at age 21</p>

<p><a href="../photo/2108707">http://www.photo.net/photo/2108707</a></p>

<p>(man on Staten Island Ferry, taken within an hour after I bought first camera ever -- Nikon -- in lower Manhattan)</p>

<p>with the following just posted a day or so ago and posted almost right after being taken:</p>

<p><a href="../photo/14544892">http://www.photo.net/photo/14544892</a></p>

<p>(Woman's leg clutched by squatting man, Kyiv Metro)</p>

<p>I have done aerials (view of Mt. Rainier) with great ratings, portraits and street portraits, also with great success, nudes with some success, landscapes (a few with high ratings), fine art, and various other genres, but my first love is above.</p>

<p>I started there, and if that's all I shot, I'd be happy.</p>

<p>I'm delighted to be able to shoot still life's and so much more, to keep busy all the time because life is not 'street' alone, but a good street photo for me is a delight.</p>

<p>There are no tourist overlooks where one can get 'best view' of the 'street', as opposed to some landscape views, or postcards with better views that compete the photo that you may have just taken. Street's spontaneous, and for the quick witted.</p>

<p>I'll shoot the other genres, too; it's fun to be varied - but I love street.</p>

<p>I started there, and I'll keep shooting street as long as I can.</p>

<p>john<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

 

[alan_zinn]

<p>Echoing JDM's comments, I have a style that reflects my times. I am confident it has remained the same but can't put my finger on it exactly. As confirmation of that, a few years ago, I put together a book of my 35mm work up to that date. I began shooting in the 60's and more or less have stayed in that era's various influences: principally they are loose and expansive, non-pictorial, more challenging of convention and expectations style. That is more or less the modern generic so I guess it is no longer a recognizable style! Without question I prefer pictures with people or evidence of people. Compositionally, as sort of a style note, I expand rather than contract and don't like to crop anything. Digicams with their zoom lenses, have greatly influenced my methods and seeing, confounding the style question. BTW I do film panoramas but don't view that as my style, its only a passion.</p><div></div>

[alan_zinn]

<p>'</p><div></div>

[dan_south]

It's probably the case that everyone has a style just as everyone has an accent. But styles, like accents, can change

over time.

 

How and why a style can change will vary. It might be a conscious choice, or it might be the result of the situation in

which one works. Eliza Doolittle changed her accent because of how she wanted to be perceived. Others might

experience the change differently if, say, they move to a different region or frequent a different crowd. We can change

our style by choice, perhaps in an effort to win the favor of clients or our contemporaries, or we can let our style evolve

as a result of our interaction with subjects or shooting situations. Neither approach is superior to the other.

 

I try to avoid style, or at least a style that's heavy handed. I want my photos to be influenced and directed by what I'm

shooting, I don't want my squeeze my subjects into a preconceived style template. But that could very well be my

style - to go easy on the style.

[lynnthomas]

I have struggled with this too. I like BW minimalism and documentary. I search out different perspectives, a

point of view that's not so common but I don't always find it. Is this a style? Then I end up shooting

everything I see because I like it all and can't decide.

 

Then there are photographers like these below that seem to find one way to process their photos and all of

their stuff looks the same. Is this their style?

 

http://www.bhollymangallery.com/index-slides.html?

folio=Portfolios&gallery=Beau%20Comeaux%3a%20Implied%20Fictions

 

http://www.bhollymangallery.com/index-slides.html?

folio=Portfolios&gallery=Alberto%20Mena%3a%20While%20I%20Sleep

[lynnthomas]

Sorry. Didn't get links in correctly.

In any case, I referred to a couple of photographers on the B. Hollyman Gallery website.