Where and how do you get a style in your oppinion?

[itelu_usihozix]

Style is very important in any visual art. Style can be recognised even when the author strays away from his main

theme. And this recognition makes it easier to mistake with any pattern. But where you got yours? How? Do you

have a style?

[MichaelChang]

<p>To me, style is how you express your preferences which you acquire through life experiences so it's not something you "get". It's who you are. </p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>its the way you see thing's and how you interpret them, you alone decide what is and what it will be :<br /> as does every one else with cameras of any kind do:</p>

[starvy]

<p>I actually feel that it is others to interpret any nuance of style in your work rather you wanting to adopt a style.</p>

[drjoder]

<p>I like this question as I happen to be at that point when I am wondering if I will ever have a personal style emerge. Here is some advice I was given: don't worry about "finding" your style, just go out and shoot, shoot, shoot A LOT and eventually your personal style will emerge. I think what this person was getting at, at least in my case, that when I go out as often as possible and shoot "A LOT" that eventually I will work my way through the experimentation and imitation stages and who I am will begin to emerge. I am not really sure, but I think I have burned through the experimentation stage (mostly anyway) and am in the latter stages of the imitation stage with very occassional flickers of "Me" coming out now and then. I think it is a long road and I think I won't worry too much about it...I'll go out and shoot "A LOT" and have fun, and have the cards fall where they may. </p>

<p>P.S. I like to think my "style" will eventually be in monochrome, high contrast, semi-abstract landscapes, cityscapes and seascapes...archival prints on carefully selected papers at 13x19 (or square format) and larger...but then again...am I still copying? I like Cole Thompson's work a lot, for example, so am I simply subconciously imitating his work? Am I still lying to myself about who I am and thus what my style will eventually be? Anyhow, interesting question and I'll be interested in what some of the "old heads" have to say. Thanks. (I'll come back in 5 years and read what I just wrote and laugh!)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I find used styles for cheap on eBay. That way I can try more of them for a reasonable cost. Besides, I've found that most styles turn out to be used anyhow. I wouldn't bother with the ones that are factory refurbished, the regular used ones wear just as well.</p>

<p>However, overdone, hi-def styles are the "Beanie Babies" of styles. Many of them are offered at 99¢ and free shipping without a single bidder.</p>

<p>You can often find a lot of styles lying around free on the "internets", as for example in the portfolios here on this site.</p>

<p>Of course, everybody has a style, whether they realize it or not. Trust me, I wrote a dissertation on style.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Here's my style I've really, really honed since shooting digital. It's called...</p>

<p><em>"Give Me The Freakin' Picture I Saw With My Eyes You Piece Of Crap Camera So I Don't Have To Fix It In Post"!</em></p><div></div>

[dhbebb]

<p>As with any other medium, a personal style comes from practising long enough until you find out what you want to say and are confident enough to say it in your own voice. This involves digging emotionally deep within yourself, a process with which the last two posters above are clearly extremely uncomfortable.</p>

[rossb]

<p> I just grab my 35mm and take photos. All I want is some nice photos of the family and our adventures. I do not care about having a style or any artsy stuff. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>David, I'm not uncomfortable at all.</p>

<p>You misunderstood my point.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Dunno... My "style" has nothing to do with my message. It's just a collection of ideosyncrasies that... er... just happen. I have a way of doing things that I like. That's all. There's no deep, emotional digging in that. There's actually some deep, emotional digging in some (not all, or even most) of my photography, but it has much more to do with what I photograph and how I photograph it, not with the stylistic elements of my finished work.</p>

 

[bethe_fisher]

<p>Unlike fashion, in photography style happens. I couldn't tell you what my style is, but several other people have said they can pick out my photos in a crowd with no problem. I'm sure that all of my life experiences play into my photos, but I couldn't tell you how or give examples. I'm just living my life - I don't sit and try to explain it. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Nothing wrong with a little self reflection every now and then. That can risk becoming negatively self conscious but some amounts of self consciousness are fine with me. I let things happen . . . in moderation. And I make things happen, too. I like to take an active role in the development of my vision, style, and voice all the while trying to feel out when to give up control as well. I like the tensions and harmonies produced by the two states at play and at odds with each other.</p>

[richard_john_edwards]

<p>I agree with Michael Chang</p>

[alexpardi]

<blockquote>

<p>I have a way of doing things that I like. That's all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>@Sarah<br>

It's true, but I think it's not as simple as it sounds. Because what you like may change over time, and if you ask yourself why you did like something that you're no longer satisfied with, you may discover (in retrospective) that you were just proud of being able to accomplish something technically challenging, or to have discovered something original, or to reproduce the style of some other successful photographer (the experimentation and imitation stages David talked about).</p>

[stp]

<p>For me, I think Michael Chang and Fred G. both said it well. To those thoughts, I would also add a technical aspect, in that some people seem to be especially adept at using their equipment as natural extensions of both their mind and their body -- it's a mental and physical ability they seem to have with technology. It's an attribute that can be honed, and it influences style.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>First, find your subject. What do you want to photograph? Why do you want to photograph it? What do you want to say about your subject? Then, how will you say it? This is how your own style will emerge.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I agree with Richard John Edwards.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>JDMVW, just what I was going to say! KEH has them cheap, with a 14-day return, too.</p>

<p>_____________________________________</p>

<p>Style, like so many other things, happens. </p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>Don't follow some famous photographers style. Create and develop your own.</p>

<p>It might take years or even decades.</p>

<p>I've seen photographers who just chase the latest trends, want to create trends, but fail, because they copy some style that's already on the market.</p>

<p>It is like handwriting. Some people say you must have it in your genes or blood. Being unique in today's world is not an easy task.</p>

<p>Depending on the area you want to cover, check what other photographers are doing, and if you could imagine to develop a different way to 'see things'.</p>

<p>As a landscape photographer I definitely would check Clyde Butcher in Florida. For architecture I'd study Julius Shulman's images... but not to copy their approach and style, just to figure out if I could be different, more to the point, or more generic, or only in b&w, etc.</p>

<p>It's tough to hammer a few words for what I needed 3 decades <sigh></p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Nah, jens. You don't need 3 decades. You pretty much nailed the gist of it.</p>

<p>The snag with developing a style with photography as opposed to say painting and illustration lies in your handwriting analogy. The more technically controlled the process the less there are areas to imbue a unique thumbprint. The chemical process of film provided a sort of organic nature to image making but these were purely by accident and unintended such as bleach bypass and cross process including what lens design induced flair, reflection and color anomalies are thrown into the mix.</p>

<p>This is not to say digital can't be imbued with the same organic "happy accident" method of stylizing an image which pretty much requires an intimate knowledge of post processing software along with how much and with the right subject and composition. That's where the feelings and sensitivity of the photographer can be further explored in areas not possible or at least made very difficult with film and its reduced color gamut and dynamics.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Interesting observations. Back in my darkroom days, I had control not only of the shoot, but also of film choice, film processing choices, exposure, contrast, paper surface, and occasional dodging, burning, and toning. Now with digital postprocessing I have control of all that and more. There is a lot of decision making that goes into the postprocessing of any of my images. Rather than having a fairly rigid process I have to follow, I can carefully manipulate numerous parameters however I wish, and therefore impart to my photographs a certain signature style. I think individual styles may be more evident now in the digital age than they ever were in the film era.</p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>@Sarah: What you describe is a technical style, not a personal style.</p>

<p>Style in photography develops over a long time. How you see and perceive light and shadows, objects, scenes, how you compose to give your images power, soul, depth.</p>

<p>The 'post process' is almost identical, except that you have a full 16/48bit color depth right 'off sensor' by using film and scanning it. That's the reason why I still use film, and in 99% I just scan the slides without any additional post processing, because the modern emulsions deliver the (natural and authentic) look I (and my clients) prefer.</p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>Just found this nice statement from Friedrich Dürrenmatt [swiss author, painter and dramatist]:</p>

<p><em>Anyone can take pictures. Even a machine. But not everyone can watch. Photography is art only in so far as to use the art of observing. Observation is an elementary poetic process. The reality must be shaped, it wants to speak and reveal.</em><br>

— Friedrich Dürrenmatt</p>

<p>Addendum: <em>Only few people can <strong>make</strong> photographs.</em></p>

[MattB.Net]

<p>I think style is what others usually see in your work rather than something you consciously put into it.<br>

I like a lot of shadows, reflections, and backlighting. It just appeals to me visually so those elements are in my photos a lot. Someone told me recently "that's your style". So I guess he was right, but I didn't go and try to define it as such, it just happened because of how I see things. </p>