John-
I'd disagree that you read it correctly. That's an incredibly arrogant thing to say, because the question doesn't define 'style' with any degree of precision.
It alludes to marketing/selling images. In that context, being known for a 'style' is generally a good thing (see Blansky's comment), so long as you don't get so stuck in it you become "the tree guy" (or "the colored gels painting-with-light guy" or "the pink bunny rabbit somewhere in the photo guy"). Which as Blansky pointed out, is just a marketing gimmick anyway. Defined your way, it's impossible to NOT photograph in your 'style', so there was no purpose to the question. Every photo is taken in your own 'style' - I don't think you can take a photo in someone else's style. You can certainly imitate others' techniques, but you can't stop seeing with your own eyes.
I took my cue in my original answer from the comment about not taking a photo for moral or ethical reasons - i.e. the proverbial "I saw this homeless guy lying in a pool of his own vomit, and it would have been a powerful statement image about the social decline of America today, but I didn't take it because it would be exploitative". But the follow-up I read as something akin to: you're out documenting a protest march and see a really cool antique motorcycle that could make it on the cover of Biker magazine. Do you take the photo of the bike?
Ultimately the answer to that is - it's up to you. But I wouldn't put it in any kind of ethical/moral context. 'Style' doesn't have morality.
arrogant ?
well, if it is arrogant to suggest that
style has not much to do with subject matter
and more to do with the person behind the camera
well, that's my take on it, i guess im arrogant.
i am well aware of what style is scott
and while it is how someone markets themselves ( or tries to at least be known for "something different" )
it doesn't have to be defined by project unless you want to put yourself in a pigeonhole.
but to market yourself, you want to be in a pigeonhole, so it is a catch22
no "style" ?
even people copying other people's work eventually leaves the work he or she is copying,
and finds their own way of seeing it and expressing what they are seeing.
What would you choose:a good photograph that doesn't fit your style or not to take photo (assuming that will be published)?
if i only had a small amount of film, and i didn't want to "waste it on a photograph"
i wouldn't expose the film .. but i rarely see something that isn't worth the piece of film.
time is fleeting, if you see something that interests you photograph it, life's too short to not photograph something
because it doesn't fit with a current project, don't be stingy.
to add onto scott's vintage motorcycle lead.
i have been sent on assignment to photograph an event. and an event can be defined by the people that show up,
the setting, as well as other things. photographing a vintage bike has everything to do with an event, it has to do
with the people at the event, not just the riot, burrning things in effigy &c. photograph the bike, don't pass it up, and submit it along with
the portraits, and mess of people, the riot and the after party.
too many people stand too close to their subject. stand back a few feet and see what is around you
it all has to do with the "event", don't limit yourself and open your eyes WIDE.
and if it is a satan's helpers convention, and you didn't get the camera confiscated by one of satan's helpers
who knows they might want to have a transparency made on velum so they can get a tatoo of the bike, where the sundon't shine.