Do you have a "style"

[Vaughn]

And I would counter that one's style is the direction that one finds their work heading.
I think it may be a bit of both. We shoot the way we do both because that is how we want to do it, and because that is how we feel compelled to do it.

Sounds like the exact same thing to me.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I think I've got a 'style' - I couldn't define it precisely, but I have a certain way of photographing things, from the perspective I use to the way I print things, I think my photographs are fairly easily identifiable as mine, and not confused with other people's work. There's no absolute on this - there are lots of photos I take that I take for my own enjoyment, not that I would try to show and sell, and those I think are more generic (photos of animals at the zoo, insects/flowers/other macro work, etc).

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Hey just wandering about what is your style. In other words, what kind of look do you seek in your photographs

By clicking on your user name, then clicking the number of photos in "Media" it looks like you definitely have a consistency in the way you see and present photographs. Is it your style, or is it a phase...only time will tell!

When checking peoples "Media" (even if you only look at the thumbnails) sometimes a persons 'style' jumps right out at you.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My style can best be described as realist, abstract and minimalist, while being influenced by William Eggleston, Vivian Maier and Steven Shore.

But as Gary Winogrand, I am mostly driven to see what things look like on film.

I wish I could see minimalist compositions, so I must be a maximalist who likes to keep people out of landscapes, exposes properly and focuses the camera. Blurry photographs are for fuzzy minded people and I ain't one of dem.

 

[MattKing]

Blurry photographs are for fuzzy minded people and I ain't one of dem.

Blurry, but no fuzz involved:

 

[Sirius Glass]

Blurry, but no fuzz involved:
View attachment 283132

Ok, but I cannot get exited about it. I get similar photographs from pinhole lenses on Nikons and Hasseblads, and they are ok for a change but I do not see making 16"x20 prints for my living room of any of them.

 

[MattKing]

Ok, but I cannot get exited about it.

I expect you mean excited (darn auto-correct).
This and a couple of other pinhole images I'm particularly fond of actually look far better enlarged to 13.5" on the long side (my favorite for enlargements) than they do viewed on a computer screen.
They seem more pregnant with hidden meaning that way.
And my poor efforts pale when you consider someone like Alexey Titarenko:
https://www.pinterest.ca/amoscarmi/alexey-titarenko/

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I wish I could see minimalist compositions, so I must be a maximalist who likes to keep people out of landscapes, exposes properly and focuses the camera. Blurry photographs are for fuzzy minded people and I ain't one of dem.

Ansel Adams was once quoted as saying "There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy idea". Touche.

 

[George Mann]

Blurry photographs are for fuzzy minded people and I ain't one of dem.

I never mentioned such a concept. I will leave that to the Lomography crowd.

 

[Ian Grant]

A style is the direction one is pushing one's work.

And that;s the Approach. As you later say taht's constantly evolving

I would add that my approach to landscapes is different to my photography with rock bands, and differs again with my fine art nudes, or my evolving digital work, So multi latered.

Ian

 

[Alex Benjamin]

A style is the direction one is pushing one's work.

If you're a Dadaist and love to take inspiration from happy accidents, you could also state that a style is the misdirections one is pushing one's work.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

This discussion reminded me of something written by David Kachel regarding the making of fine prints.

In it, he talks about Going Too Far. Much of what he says can be true with "style" as well, in that as we experiment and explore tangents to make stronger photographs, they often lead to dead ends. It's never wasted effort though...something is always learned that comes in handy later, or leads to another stylistic room to explore.

Always Go Too Far

The only reason this is secret #2 instead of #1 is that you must determine local contrast first. Otherwise this topic is just as important—maybe more so. Here’s what the go too far rule is all about:

When you focus the lens of your camera, you never go directly to the point of sharpest focus. You must instead run back and forth over this point several times in order to recognize where it is. You know it is the point of sharpest focus only because you have been able to see less sharp points on either side of it for comparison. You could not possibly focus a lens adequately if you were forced to move the lens only one time, in one direction. It does not matter how many years experience you have in photography, you still must focus your lens in this trial-and-error way. You will never be able to tell where sharp focus is, unless you can also see where it is NOT.

The same is true in print making. You will never reach the point where you can look at a print and be able to determine if the exposure and contrast of that print are the best they can be. Just as in the focusing example above, you must have something to which you can compare. You must be able to see where exposure and contrast are NOT adequate in order to know where they are adequate. Hence, the go too far rule.

This means that with every negative you print, not matter how much your natural tendencies lead you in another direction (and they will), you must go too far in every possible direction.

You cannot know that the print you have made exhibits optimal local contrast unless you have in your hands for comparison, prints that are obviously too flat and obviously too contrasty. Therefore, no matter how certain you may be that your print exhibits adequate contrast, you must make prints that are both higher and lower in contrast. You should do this in half grade steps until you arrive at a print in which you are certain that contrast is too high or too low. Always be sure to test in both directions. You must have both extremes for comparison.

Do the same with exposure as you do with contrast. Make sure you have prints in which the exposure was too much and too little. This is a bit easier to do than with contrast, but is just as important. You cannot know that exposure was correct unless you have a range of test prints (whole prints, not strips) that are definitely too dark on one end of the range and too light on the other.

Follow this go too far rule throughout the printing process. When you dodge or burn an area, keep adding to the dodge or burn times until you reach a point where you have gone too far. Only then can you successfully determine which preceding dodge or burn time was the correct one. In absolutely everything you do in the print making process, burning, dodging, contrast, exposure, flashing—go too far in every possible direction. If all this sounds like a lot of extra work, it isn’t…

This is necessary work, not extra work. If you don’t do it, your prints will not be nearly as good as they will if you do it. It’s that simple. This is what the big guns in photography do when making a print. If you do it too, your prints will be a lot better, very soon. If you don’t acquire this habit, your prints will never get where you want them to be, because you cannot tell when a print is right unless you have prints that aren’t right, in every possible direction, to which you can compare it!

For the full article, go here:

http://www.davidkachel.com/assets/fpsecret.htm

http://davidkachel.com/wpNewDK/

 

[awty]

If you're a Dadaist and love to take inspiration from happy accidents, you could also state that a style is the misdirections one is pushing one's work.

Id be happy with that.

 

[mexicoke]

Unintentionally my style is akin to Raymon DePardon.

 

[removed account4]

If you're a Dadaist and love to take inspiration from happy accidents, you could also state that a style is the misdirections one is pushing one's work.

if that's the case I guess I'm a dadaist and a few other things ..
I try not to have a style I'd rather roam and graze and use whatever catches my fancy for my inspiration.
I was watching that sad movie about bob ross the other day and think I'm rossist too . 1/2 hour is just right!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

"Look" is too primitive concept. It all looks the same after while.
I'm not into it but, I was told by some to have style.