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

[tudor_apmadoc]

Interesting discussion. I have been shooting pics for 45 years. Have shot well over 300,000 pics. Primarily landscape,

but also a wide variety of others. After all this time, I still don't have what I call a style, I shoot what interests me. In post

work, I do black and white or color, all depending on the photos, some low contrast, some high, all depends on the scene.

I work telephoto, wide, macro, tilt shift to capture with view I need.

 

But still no personal style. Some photographers do, but in some respects I think it limits your creativity

 

I have some of my favorite pics at

 

Let me know if you see a style

[dhbebb]

<p><strong></strong>It seems “style” is being used here to mean two different things, or perhaps the same thing at 2 levels – firstly, the use of a certain distinctive craft technique to stand out from the crowd (which can certainly be a smart move from a commercial point of view), and secondly the manifestation in visual terms of a unique mental or philosophical view.<br>

I am sure all of us could think of many examples, the first ones which come into my mind as a Brit for the former category are Simon Marsden with his IR pictures and John Blakemore with his multi-exposure LF technique (as many as 50 exposures on the same film). It is all too easy for photographers to conclude that they will succeed in making a personal statement IF ONLY they can find the right lens/film developer/toner/Photoshop filter – sadly it doesn’t work that way!<br>

In the second category I would place Henri Cartier-Bresson, in no way a normal photojournalist but an intelligent and visual acute person who was fortunate enough to be rich enough to do exactly what he wanted, but also many other more commercial workers – the list could go on forever, names that come to mind to me personally are Richard Avedon, David Bailey, William Eggleston, Fay Godwin and many many more.</p>

[Brad_]

Speaking only for myself... My "style" has developed over years and is driven by what I see and feel in

neighborhoods I shoot, people I meet and photograph, and experiences I encounter along the way. It's the

underlying structure for photographs I make.

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Well, yes, but it's still a part of the overall "style" of my photography. I was mostly commenting on the observation by Tim of "thumbprints" and "happy accidents," so to speak. They happen in digital too, even more so. That's because there are many, many more processing parameters at play. (Note here: I'm not arguing that one medium is superior to the other.) </p>

<p>But yes, I agree with you that a photographer's style begins with an idea end ends with the print -- or even matting and framing. I think my candids are a bit different from what most people produce, and very little of that difference is technical. However, SOME of it definitely is, hence my comment.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Let me know if you see a style</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tudor, you appear to have a consistent compositionally pleasing balanced style. You have a good eye for finding interesting subjects to shoot and compose and render without pretentiousness so as not to make them out to be more than they are.</p>

<p>You shoot pretty similar to Russell Lee's Farm Security Administration/Office Of War Information Kodachromes of the '30's and '40's.</p>

<p>http://www.loc.gov/wiseguide/jun04/glory.html</p>

<p>Nice work on your flickr site.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>And just to add to Sarah's comment, those unique "thumbprints" and "happy accidents" also occur during the seeking process and all the way to the final image.</p>

<p>It's the photographer's decisions to allow, find or think up ways and techniques of integrating it into the process. For example the decision to machine gun from the hip shot after shot at certain scenes and composition and lighting situations that will introduce a particular effect or composition is one technique among many. Sometimes it creates interesting images, sometimes it doesn't.</p>

<p>As a former graphic artist for a hippy t-shirt shop the owner didn't want any Madison Avenue style slick graphics for his t-shirt design ideas. So a lot of stuff was done by hand such as fonts, graphics and photo realistic images. One technique I implemented to get the "grunge" look was to hand write a clever quip with black felt marker on absorbent typing paper, xerox it and wad that up to produce cracks and dents in the toner ink and then take another copy of it. I'ld do the same to sharp/slick graphics and logos. Looked great enlarged 10x on a graphics camera and printed on a t-shirt.</p>

<p>That was a deliberate decision to try to communicate an idea using a process. This can happen in photography using techniques to create similar Lo Fi results but it requires how it would be implemented as being a natural part of the photographic image. My "grunge" technique worked for t-shirts because it's an idea for a t-shirt.</p>

<p>Something similar but different would have to happen with photography that fits and agrees with that medium or else the photographer comes across too "cutesy". Overdone HDR comes to mind.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>David I let the first one go by, but the real sense of style seems to be outside your ken.<br /> Style is not a mystery, just difficult to explain and describe. Introspection and umbilicospection are about as useful in understanding how style works as they are in understanding language.</p>

<p>To understand style, you have to study art, not philosophy.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>"Style" is a useful handle for critics, curators and collectors who need some frame of reference or context for discussion. Consciously developing one seems uncomfortably close to wearing a collar and leash.</p>

<p>Whatever "styles" I have were usually influenced by the characteristic quirks or limitations of the materials I was using at the moment - camera, film, lens, my often atrocious editing and worse choices. If those styles happen to have any aesthetic merit it's almost purely accidental.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>David I let the first one go by, but the real sense of style seems to be outside your ken.</em><br /><em>Style is not a mystery, just difficult to explain and describe. Introspection and umbilicospection are about as useful in understanding how style works as they are in understanding language.</em><br>

<em>To understand style, you have to study art, not </em><em>philosophy.</em><br>

Quite frankly, I think those noted art critics Sammy Cahn and Jimmy Van Heusen nailed it pretty well:<br>

<a href="http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/frank_sinatra/style.html">http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/frank_sinatra/style.html</a><br>

Of course you need to study art if you are, for example, valuing artworks to go into auctions (in which case "style" specifically means "like artist X but almost certainly not by him"). You also need to put in some study time if you are going to accurately ascribe works to particular schools or periods. In general parlance today, however, style means "a distinctive appearance which suggests originality of thought" - which is a gut feeling, not a cerebral decision.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>umbilicospection</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My new favorite word! Thanks, JDM! :-)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>There's a distinct prejudice in many threads like this against self reflection and against intentionality. Words like "umbilicospection" are tossed around cavalierly as if the intent to develop a personal or unique style is a dirty or misguided endeavor. You think the Pointillists really didn't know they were developing something new? You really think those photographers who succeeded the Pictorialist movement didn't quite consciously develop a new "style" in reaction to Pictorialism and in a very intentional move away from photography mimicking painting? No, sorry, it didn't all just happen. And style is NOT just an individual thing. It is often a product of the time and culture in conjunction with an individual's vision.</p>

<p>The way I work is often to reflect on what I'm doing and to evolve accordingly. I never shirk from navel gazing, at least in its constructive and delightful sense. For me, it's a back and forth between an almost mindless being in the moment sometimes and at other times spending a lot of time thinking about things and consciously honing what I want to do and say, and how I want to do it, and what I want it to look like. I naturally incline toward that kind of dialogue, the tensions and harmonies that result from allowing doing and thinking to form a dance.</p>

<p>I would find it foolishly romantic to think that art just happens, or style for that matter. The people I tend to remember for their art and style seemed very much to study other artists' styles, often talked a lot about those styles they learned from, talked with other artists about it, worked hard themselves, had completely inspirational and gut-level emotional breakthroughs with little thought involved, and also weren't afraid to dwell in their world and step back from what they were doing in order to consider it. If I can't ponder and be objective about my own photography and photographs, which means at some level reflecting on it, at least at some points in time, it's hard for me to imagine learning, growing, or ever developing a style that would actually matter.</p>

<p>There's nothing wrong with my being an active participant in my life and in my photography. It doesn't all just have to "happen" in order for me to be inspired, creative, and develop a voice.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Geez, Fred. JDM offers you apple pie and motherhood and you complain ... I'll take "umbilicospection" and say Thank YOU! The Impressionists got their name from a sneering critic who had no clue; the Fauvists got their name from a sneering critic who had no clue ... I think the philosophy of photography might embrace a tag from a similar source (though one has to wonder, if in all these cases there's not one of those "envy" things going on subconsciously -- penis envy, venus envy, brain envy ...).</p>

<p>Umbilical = connection, nourishment, oxygen, growth, life ...</p>

[Brad_]

>>> There's a distinct prejudice in many threads like this against self reflection and against intentionality.

 

Where is this prejudice?

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>as if the intent to develop a personal or unique style is a dirty or misguided endeavor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nothing I said can remotely be interpreted legitimately to mean that, or that it is misguided to seek a personal style. Rather, I simply commented that you have a personal style, whether you know it or not, however banal it may be. Intentionality has nothing to do with anything discussed here so I don't understand how that got introduced. Self reflection is good for mental health, but it is not a tool to uncover "reality." Of course, I am naive in supposing that you accept any concept of <em>reality</em>, I know.</p>

<p>So what can I say? Thank you, thank you. I must have touched a nerve. </p>

<p>You have the Philosophy of Photography forum almost completely to yourselves, so don't complain if your fuzzy, touchy-feely, "the universe is ME" attitude is not accepted blindly elsewhere in the world of P.net. <br>

I'd say there is a prejudice against rationality and fact-based interpretation in some parts. </p>

<p>And by the way, when some one doesn't <em>agree</em> with you, it's not usually because they didn't <em>understand</em> you. I know that's hard to accept, but writing 2-page responses won't change anything.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Another great display of circumlocution and obfuscation from JDM - I have to say your rhetorical tricks are wearing a little thin :).<br>

<em>Intentionality has nothing to do with anything discussed here so I don't understand how that got introduced. </em><br>

I cited Simon Marsden and John Blakemore as two examples of photographers who have very clearly and deliberately cultivated a personal style based on unusual technique. Do you simply ignore anything that doesn’t fit with your arguments?<br>

<em>Self reflection is good for mental health, but it is not a tool to uncover “reality.” Of course, I am I in supposing that you accept any concept of </em><em>reality</em><em>, I know.</em><br>

<em>So what can I say? Thank you, thank you. I must have touched a nerve.</em><br>

Here we go with JDM Trick #2. JDM apparently holds advanced academic degrees (he is careful not to give precise details) which give him wide scope to dismiss anyone who doesn’t agree with him as a moron. For example, I have 45 years professional experience as a creative in the media industry but according to JDM have no understanding of the concept of style on any level. Self-analysis is key to discovering what you are trying to say and to producing any work in any medium which is worth a damn – it is an unfortunate characteristic of photography that automated technology makes it possible to produce superficially passable work with your brain locked in neutral. The result – billions of images which are emotionally sterile and meaningless.<br>

<em>You have the Philosophy of Photography forum almost completely to yourselves, so don't complain if your fuzzy, touchy-feely, "the universe is ME" attitude is not accepted blindly elsewhere in the world of P.net. <br /> I'd say there is a prejudice against rationality and fact-based interpretation in some parts.</em><br>

And here is JDM Trick #3 – wilfull misunderstanding, which in this case enables him to dismiss those who think about the philosophy of photography as deluded narcissists. JDM, I've worked with creatives for such a long time that I know instantly where people are at if, when invited to engage with art at an emotional level, they leap back like scalded cats and try to hide behind puerile humor. Knock yourself out, buddy - you're fooling no one but yourself.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Just who is being puerile? <br>

I based my conclusions on your knowledge of style, on your comments here.<br>

By the way, almost every member of my family is or was an artist, so don't pretend you know who I am or what I think.<br>

I'm satisfied to submit this to the attention of the others. Let them chime in if they think your response makes sense. </p>

 

[dhbebb]

<p>Just who is being puerile?<br>

<em>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.</em></p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

To having a defined style is something that allows others to look at a photo and know who took it. Ansel Adams, Pete

Turner are two that come to mind. There are articles and books to show you how to Ansel Adams "style" photos. Ansel

himself wote a series of 3 books on it

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>Can anyone contribute images instead of words and phrases please? Words are far too abstract to 'get the picture'!</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>Can anyone contribute images instead of words and phrases please? Words are far too abstract to 'get the picture'!</em><br>

Happy to oblige - the photographer who best illustrates the qualities I am talking about is Minor White - I can't find a particularly good website featuring his work, but I believe that anyone who had the opportunity to view his definitive book "Mirrors, Messages, Manifestations" would soon understand what I mean.</p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>In another forum thread this topic was discussed in which I stated then and hold true still that style is born from experience and time.</p>

<p>In a photographic sense, style is formed through experimentation and refinement in post production. When one identifies what works and what doesn't they tend to stick to that and so their style takes shape. Style can of course be learned when one mimics another's editing technique/style and reshapes it/tweaks it to suit their needs thus making it their own. Style can also represent composition, again born through time and experience but also can be learned by mimicking another's compositional form and adapted to their own. Aside from mimicking, style can also be one's perception of the world through the lens but ever present for style to exist is time and experience behind the lens.</p>

[puce]

<p>Seeing the world with one's unique point of view, in my opinion, defines style. The best way to see it is to go and shoot at a location with a group of people. Everyone will shoot the same material in a different way - and perhaps even see details differently. It is interesting to then compare everyone's work, and it may often be that the work can be easily identified by their unique way of doing things. I belong to a photography club where there is an annual juried show. You can walk along the aisles on judging day and identify individual photographer works even though there are no names linked with them. And that is a good thing, because the work has an interesting and special quality to it.</p>

[itelu_usihozix]

<p>Sarah Fox:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Shouldn't precisely this plethora of options stand in the way of a style? Instead of finding a voice one starts tuning and tuning and tuning in a space with no right or wrong.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think individual styles may be more evident now in the digital age than they ever were in the film era.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>I recall reading somewhere, so the quote might be even inprecise, that style can't be downloaded or put into an algorithm. And digital offers just this over the analog.</p>

 

<p>Jens, thank you for the Friedrich Dürrenmatt quote.</p>

 

<p>Tudor ApMadoc:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Some photographers do, but in some respects I think it limits your creativity </p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>What a sad world to live in! I wrote your message down, because it impressed me.</p>

 

<p>David Bebbington:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>[...]Henri Cartier-Bresson, in no way a normal photojournalist but an intelligent and visual acute person who was fortunate enough to be rich enough to do exactly what he wanted[...]</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Everybody doing something comparable IS rich enough. I can't imagine a single mom working two jobs or more at at least 45 minutes away from the temporary home hanging around photo forums the same way I can't imagine a street child in Cambodgia or Somalia planning his Pulitzer Price photo documentary. Flippin' burgers a couple of hours a day in order to keep buying consumables for one's major art project is not the same as working 16 hours a day for hunger wages.</p>

 

<p>Art X, could you post a link to that other discussion?</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Itelu, I'm not getting anything from your last post that says how one acquires a style in their photography. What I am getting is you debating other's in their opinion on the subject and I'm not even sure about that.</p>

<p>Maybe something lost in your translation. Not sure.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>David Bebbington:</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>[...]Henri Cartier-Bresson, in no way a normal photojournalist but an intelligent and visual acute person who was fortunate enough to be rich enough to do exactly what he wanted[...]</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Everybody doing something comparable IS rich enough. ...</em><br>

You may not be aware that Cartier-Bresson came from a family which had made a fortune in the textile trade:<br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Cartier-Bresson">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Cartier-Bresson</a><br>

It is very likely that he never HAD to work for a living at any time in his life.<br>

I also think you fail to understand that from the advent of the popular press in the 1890s until photojournalism was supplanted by TV roughly in the 1970s, it was possible to make living as a photojournalist – albeit not a very good one. Today, if anyone wants to follow this trade, they are going to have to find some means of self-financing or cross-subsidizing themselves from other activities whether photographic or not. The same applies to personal projects. Aside from that, I too don’t really understand what point you’re making!</p>