On Personal Style in Photography?

[christoph_frick1]

Let met first provide the Leica context ;-) : after entering the M

system, I happened to get accused of being a gear freak who thinks

that just by using an "expensive" camera my pictures automatically

will be "better" than by others using "cheaper" equipment. -- Don't

know how I caused this, because actually I think it is just obvious

that it is the photographer, not the camera, who has the most

crucial part in making a good photo. An otherwise bad photo can not

be saved by the fact that it was taken with a high-quality camera

with a fantastic lens -- if a very good picture happened to be taken

using an excellent lens this can be a bonus, but not more; cameras

and lenses are just tools.

 

Therefore, as it is the photographer who is most important in the

creation of photographs, I'm curious about questions concerning the

personal style of photographers, e.g.:

 

(i) what constitutes the personal style of a photographer (given the

fact that amittedly there are more mechanical steps involved in the

creation of a photograph than, say, of a painting)?

 

(ii) which photographers do you think have strong personal styles,

i.e. their work should be easy to recognise?

 

(iii) is there a correlation between the quality of a photographer

and the distinctiveness of her/his style (i.e., the better the

photographer the more distinctive is her/his style or vice versa)?

 

(iv) when you look at photos made by family members or close

friends, in particular non-pro-s, do you see personal styles?

 

(v) what would be a good test set-up to detect whether certain

photographers do have their respective personal style or not,

without turning such a test into a competition?

 

(vi) does using a Leica have an impact on the personal style?

 

(vii) ...all other questions/ideas in this context are appreciated...

 

Apologies to those who prefer less philosophical, more gear-oriented

topics on this forum. I hope some of you enjoy discussing it and

thank you in advance.

[michael_kastner]

Christoph: don't get me wrong but your whole question is not even off topic, it is completely out of the realm: each of all seven individual questions have all been asked at least a dozen of times within the last few months. All I can say is... read the last postings within the last two or three weeks, OR, look into the archives!!!

[preston_merchant]

A personal style may derive from just about anything, from something as simple as film choice to something literary like allusion. When you think of Eggleston, you think color; Salgado, black and white; Harvey, color. Etc.

 

Style might also be attributable (though not limited) to focal length of lens or format of camera. Cartier-Bresson favored the 50 mm. Mary Ellen Mark most often shoots medium-format black and white portraits. Gursky shoots large format.

 

But style is usually something a bit more sophisticated. HCB�s pictures are witty and playful. Salgado�s have been described as luminous. Eggleston�s have been called boring.

 

Choice of subject matter, too, becomes part of style.

 

None of this is terribly interesting, though. Style, for me anyway, resides more in something barely tangible, almost like a fingerprint. It might be hitched to the points I noted above, but it is not dependent on them.

 

In �Return to Mexico,� Abbas noted that he tried to capture three active elements in many of those pictures shot with a 35 mm lens. Not fore-, middle-, and back-, but trying to see if three distinct elements could coalesce somewhere in the frame.

 

Nachtwey likes to include disembodied hands reaching into the frame. Salgado likes to make allusions to Renaissance paintings and to include biblical imagery, like pigeons descending as if they were doves of the Holy Spirit. Much of his work is drawn directly or indirectly from the Bible: fishermen at their nets (like the disciples), pregnant refugee women (like Mary), vast camps of displaced persons (like the masses gathered for the loaves and the fishes). Salgado�s great gift is to present this timelessness: the great human epic endlessly replayed.

 

He is not alone, as stock religious images are easily discernable by most people. Eugene Smith�s picture of the Japanese woman bathing her child deformed by toxic dumping is a modern-day pieta. Don McCullin has a shot of a Bangladeshi woman bathing her daughter dying of cholera. She is pouring water on her forehead to cool her, as if in baptism.

 

Style derives from many different components--tangible and intangible--and each photographer weighs them differently. If Salgado shot color Polaroids, his style would be largely unaffected. If Eggleston shot in color, his style would be drastically altered. There would be no Gursky without large format, an enormous inkjet printer, and considerable capital.

 

One of the definitive essays on style is T. S. Eliot�s �Tradition and the Individual Talent.� Though it�s not about photography, you might still find it useful.

[wgpinc]

Christopher,

 

Hemingway, who was never humble with his opinions, said your style is what people call the mistakes you make. I say do it whatever it is and let other people talk about it. Good luck!

[christoph_frick1]

Preston, thank you for pointing out this essay by T.S.Eliot -- the Internet is great, I immediately found it and printed it out to read it.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

Interesting topic and a fairly difficult one. Three photographers that have a

strong visual style that you might look at (among many) are Alex Webb, Gilles

Peress (if you can find his book Telex Iran--this is great), and Eugene

Richards. All three are with Magnum. Anyway, look at their work and think

about their style. A unique personal style is really the holy grail of the arts.

Few ever reach it.

[iván]

Maybe photographers who shoot for long enough end up having a distinct way to do it; mainly a way to look around and identify the kind of subjects they prefer and the way they want to record a particular happenstance of time and light, in some cases; a way to arrange objects / persons in front of their camera to show them the way they want us to see them, in other cases.

 

I don't think that the quality (?) of a photographer defines whether she/he has her/his own style: one could theoretically make very bad photos patterned so that a personal "style" could be identified like one's own.

 

Regarding style recognition I think that an easier example could be related to painting and traditional fine and representative arts in general: we can easily recognize Picasso's, Goya's, Rodin's, Modigliani's, De Chirico's, Bach's, Arrau's styles, right? The same as H C-B's, Gibson's, etc. And that is exactly what some people use in order to fake master pieces ! so that it is very obvious that style does exist and can be recognized, more or less easily depending upon how different it was from the main stream production or upon how repetitive its defining details are in the artist's work. Even more, if somebody else works in a similar form we usually say she/he works "the master's style"

 

A different thing is to assume that one can purposely produce art work in a given style (assuming that one can produce ART work, in the first place). IMHO style is a consequence of many subtle personal factors more than of an organized way of doing things. No doubt that it could arise from a given organized way of doing things, however. Provided there is more to it than just a work mechanics . . .

 

Leica having any impact on one's style? The concept seems to be subtle enough as for not being tied to any brand, be it of cameras, paintbrushes, or other tools. And then, style is about a person, isn't it? I assume that in the old times Leica could have contributed to make possible the development of some personal styles because it made spontaneity more possible than most older photo gear, of course. But I doubt that the same could be reasonably be sustained today. Specially if one thinks that there are far more Leica independent photo styles possible to be readily recognized than "Leica styles", if any.

 

Of course this a very controversial issue, but as useful as any other one and better than many if you want to talk about "philosophical" subjects . . . and far more interesting than gear-only topics, IMHO.

 

Regards, Christoph !

 

-Iván

[fotografz]

Painting, writing, music, design, architecture, photography, clothes

design, pottery...style is a product of a distinct personal vision. IMO,

no personal vision, no style. BTW, having a distinct style doesn't mean

it is a good style...that is a different issue.

[nesrani]

How to have a personal style (it really works, I know!):

 

1. meditate/pray

 

2. hit gypsy children over the head with your camera/tripod/anything, really

 

3. wear a tilley hat

 

4. hate and fear poor people

 

5. own leica cameras

[travis1]

I think the more important question to ask , rather than whether one has a personal style, is how has that style influence one's work. If it doesn't, what does it matter?

[robert_clark]

I agree with Rob about the Tilley hat - it is important. But why just blunt instruments?

[preston_merchant]

I just bought a Tilley hat! I had never heard of it. I didn't know there was a "thing" with it. It just looked like something that would cover my bald head.

 

Now let me get my hands on that wretched little gypsy!

[bobtodrick]

Although I find posts like these interesting when they show up, I'd never personally worry about the subject to any great degree. Style is something I think any serious 'artist' (whether amatuer, pro..whatever) will eventually develop over time. Everyone to some degree has there own slant on the world, and what they see, and it will eventually come over in their photography (writing, painting, video, etc). I've seen numerous interviews with shooters such as Ralph Gibson, Salgado and others, who, when asked what they felt their style was, or how they developed it, answered to the effect that it was something they never thought or worried about...that they just photographed things the way they saw them. A question I think best answered by art critics and historians than photographers themselves.

[bill_carson]

Hi All:

 

I can think of only four Master Photographers who might fit this description: Yousuf Karsh, William Mortensen, Ansel Adams and George Hurrell. Bill Carson

[nesrani]

"Master Photographers" - LOL!

[._._z]

Yes, Rob -- they get free Commemorative Edition Tilley hats.

[vic_.]

To go well with your Tilley travel underwear:

 

http://www.tilley.com/travel_underwear.asp