Technique, or style

[gone]

Does one, or the other, suit you? Or both? When I started in the darkroom, all that was important was making good prints. As I went along the proficiency came to a point, but it's now a bit of a production type of drudge too. I'll never be one of those that loves being in the darkroom....... shooting the shot and developing the film is much more fun, and you get to work in the light, not in the dark.

Being bored, I started printing some negs that were rejects. Low light shots, shots that are too dark, too light, out of focus, badly composed, etc. This has led me to a place where it's more a matter of creating the photograph rather than capturing/recording it. This is a new angle that is really interesting! It's freeing to get away from fussing over sharpness, tonal qualities, grain, etc. Now, it looks like a good photo, or it don't. Much simpler and rewarding because it doesn't have to look a certain way, it just has to look good to me and resonate a little w/ the viewer.

 

[Down Under]

Technique and style. Like apples and oranges. Both are fruits, but different fruits. In a fruit salad, they complement one another. Eaten separately, they are just as delicious.

Since I retired, I also have started to look at and print my old negatives. For me, this was not just about revisiting my past experiences, but about how my 'style' (if I dare to call it that) evolved, and why.

I am amazed at what I now see in those old so-called 'missed' shots. Elements pop out that I somehow consciously missed at the time, but my subconscious picked up and pushed me to make the shot.

Some of my best style of images are the out-of-focus ones. Obviously, the technique/s I used to make them I regarded at the time as wrong approaches. I am now so thankful that I kept those failures.

As an architect now retired, for several decades I fussed (unnecessarily, as I now see) over keeping the verticals perfectly vertical, the exact moment when the lighting was at its best, and the elements I could remove in the foregrounds. In analogue days it was infinitely more difficult to 'edit' images in the darkroom than it now is with scanning and post-processing. My Nikkormats and Rolleiflex had to be carefully positioned to eliminate unwanted things in the foregrounds like fire hydrants, power poles, TV aerials and suchlike. I had to work almost entirely with tripods and spirit levels. In the 1980s the lenses I used (20mm, 85mm and 180mm Nikkors) usually cost more than the cameras, especially those super expensive and annoying to use PCs (perspective control, not politically correct!). All this was the 'technique' I used. The 'style' basically came out of how I presented my images to my clients or for publication or even as displays on my office walls, and in my case this mostly came out by itself, seemingly on its own, mostly out of the back parts of my brain. As I now realise when I revisit my now-ageing negatives and slides.

Now in the 21st century, my digital DSLRs and scanners have freed me from all that unwanted tyranny. Recently, an old client asked me to attend a shoot for a company brochure of an office I designed in the late '90s. An excellent lunch was offered as pro quo payment and for old time's sake I accepted for old time's sake. On the site, I was surprised (and I will admit, quite dismayed) when the photographer, a charming 20-something young lady exuding wonderful confidence and a great presence, arrived with two somewhat dated DX Nikons and 18-55 kit lenses. She obviously knew what she was doing and so I bit my tongue, but I did wonder what the results would be and how the client would react to possibly "inferior" images. My fears were groundless. The results, when I saw them, were as good as anything I could have produced with one of my Hasselblads, the standard lens for which cost more than this young photographer's entire bag of gear.

So yes, technique and style have their places in photography, but I believe it is important that we keep them separate, and not confuse one for or with the other. they are, as I have said, like apples and oranges, and while they can be enjoyed together as a salad, they are also excellent when eaten on their own.

 

[Cholentpot]

If I'm not shooting for money not much thought goes into my technique. I shoot, and shoot and shoot. And after 100 rolls a year for nearly a decade some of those photos turn out ok. Nice enough to hang in the bathroom at least.

 

[removed account4]

Being bored, I started printing some negs that were rejects.

for years I purposefully made bad negatives to practice printing good prints. if you can translate a bad negative into a good print
you can easily translate a good negative into a good print. first its technique then its style...

 

[awty]

Developing film is the most boring uninteresting aspect of film photography, often I cock it up out of sheer boredom to try something different or not take care in the process. Taking photos is only slightly more interesting....but its the darkroom I live for. I start each picture from the beginning, the more challenging the better. I try to avoid style and technique, but its hard not to fall into a groove.
If it weren't for the darkroom Id probably not take a photograph.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Might as well be asking, What is better? - a string instrument virtuoso without a violin, or a fine violin without anyone who knows how to play it. Style and appropriate technique go together. You need to develop one alongside the other.

 

[awty]

Might as well be asking, What is better? - a string instrument virtuoso without a violin, or a fine violin without anyone who knows how to play it. Style and appropriate technique go together. You need to develop one alongside the other.

Only if you wish to follow some criteria, if its not important to you then the only relevance is what you give it.

 

[kevs]

Does one, or the other, suit you? Or both? When I started in the darkroom, all that was important was making good prints. As I went along the proficiency came to a point, but it's now a bit of a production type of drudge too. I'll never be one of those that loves being in the darkroom....... shooting the shot and developing the film is much more fun, and you get to work in the light, not in the dark.

Being bored, I started printing some negs that were rejects. Low light shots, shots that are too dark, too light, out of focus, badly composed, etc. This has led me to a place where it's more a matter of creating the photograph rather than capturing/recording it. This is a new angle that is really interesting! It's freeing to get away from fussing over sharpness, tonal qualities, grain, etc. Now, it looks like a good photo, or it don't. Much simpler and rewarding because it doesn't have to look a certain way, it just has to look good to me and resonate a little w/ the viewer.

Well, one must use a combination of techniques to create one's photographic style but who said all photos must be sharply focussed, have a full range of tones and be an accurate representation of reality? There's far more to photography than what's dictated by the so-called "experts" on YouTube or at the local Camera Club!

What's a "good" photo? It's all so subjective; I may despise pictures you love, and vice-versa. What does it communicate? Style can make or break any image but I find a preference for style over substance makes for vapid, lifeless images. There's a saying; you can't polish a turd! If the image has nothing to say, it doesn't matter what style one applies to it. Still, lots of "artists" and "photographers" make good money from selling vapid, lifeless, "artistic" photos.

 

[grain elevator]

Might as well be asking, What is better? - a string instrument virtuoso without a violin, or a fine violin without anyone who knows how to play it. Style and appropriate technique go together. You need to develop one alongside the other.

I tend to think like this. But I realize, in my bright moments, I'm a little more uptight than I like to think...

Developing film is the most boring uninteresting aspect of film photography, often I cock it up out of sheer boredom to try something different or not take care in the process. Taking photos is only slightly more interesting....but its the darkroom I live for. I start each picture from the beginning, the more challenging the better. I try to avoid style and technique, but its hard not to fall into a groove.
If it weren't for the darkroom Id probably not take a photograph.

This way of thinking is foreign to me, but your results speak for themselves!

 

[Don_ih]

If it weren't for the darkroom Id probably not take a photograph.

The same with me. If all I could do with film was scan it, I wouldn't use it.

The day before yesterday, I made a fairly flat 8x10 print from a negative that had slight motion blur. Yesterday, I rephotographed it using duplicating film to try to get it more the way I want it. Maybe today I'll enlarge that and see if I like it better. A photo is about the quality of the shadow and the light. Technical details cannot be divorced completely from stylistic concerns, as they both bring about the one thing you're making (photo) and are inherent to the process. I think everyone has seen examples where one overpowers another - too technical or too stylistic photos (or anything else, for that matter, because it's true of everything that's subject to design). Some people are really only interested in certain aspects and are perfectly happy being one way or another. There are definite advantages to trying to find a good blend of concerns, though, as you may end up with something that's more palatable to a greater number of people.

 

[guangong]

Whether photography, painting, drawing, music, etc., technique is learned, style is cultivated. Both Verdi and Rossni were masters of technique, but cultivated quite different styles. The differences are instantly recognizable. Same is true of Puccini and Wagner. Each had a distinct style. With movies, almost all movies have good technique, but few have a distinctive style. LSU, Kurosawa, Wells, and Lean films are easily recognizable because of their style. My late friend Louie Stettner was a master in the darkroom, while his pictures have a distinct style. Another late friend, Phil Pavia, had an abstract style that I understood, but not keen about, but he was a master of technique and carve anything out of marble. To have a style, the prerequisite is to be able to control technique.
Even those who practice digital capture need to master technical details of camera, omputer, printer, paper......
(More and more, mynaddress book resembles a morgue listing.)

 

[gone]

I probably did a poor job of explaining what's wrong w/ my photography. While I love the look of a beautifully exposed and printed B&W darkroom print, I don't love making one! It's production work, and I might do better as one of those photographers that sends the neg out to be printed and concentrate on getting the image right in the camera, which to me is fun. If it's not fun, and I don't have an opportunity to show stuff, then why am I doing it? Sure, everyone needs to learn the basics in any pursuit. And then? Why spend a small fortune on materials and tools, yet rarely have an opportunity to show what you did? This never happened when I was painting.

Instead of focusing on technically proficient B&W prints, I'm gonna go back to making art instead of photographs, but within the photography realm. We're all here because we want to offer, or get, feedback, and unfortunately it's not in person it's just on a computer. Not the same thing at all.

B&W film photography is a pursuit that rarely if ever allows selling a print, and just getting an exhibit together is extremely difficult, as galleries think in terms of "fine art". Working in a vacuum like I and most people are, just occasionally showing stuff and getting feedback, man, that's a stone drag,

We need more artists in this field. People who will push the boundaries and do things you're not supposed to do just to see what happens, then put it on a wall and exhibit it to see what people think. Maybe if that occurs we can get something going. If the general public is not that interested in this form of expression, then there's a reason. The direction of photography needs to change or it will be seen as just a way to record events. I saw more of this type of work in our online galleries when we were still analog only. Why that's made a difference is anyone's guess, but it has.

 

[MatthewDunn]

I probably did a poor job of explaining what's wrong w/ my photography. While I love the look of a beautifully exposed and printed B&W darkroom print, I don't love making one! It's production work, and I might do better as one of those photographers that sends the neg out to be printed and concentrate on getting the image right in the camera, which to me is fun. If it's not fun, and I don't have an opportunity to show stuff, then why am I doing it? Sure, everyone needs to learn the basics in any pursuit. And then? Why spend a small fortune on materials and tools, yet rarely have an opportunity to show what you did? This never happened when I was painting.

Instead of focusing on technically proficient B&W prints, I'm gonna go back to making art instead of photographs, but within the photography realm. We're all here because we want to offer, or get, feedback, and unfortunately it's not in person it's just on a computer. Not the same thing at all.

B&W film photography is a pursuit that rarely if ever allows selling a print, and just getting an exhibit together is extremely difficult, as galleries think in terms of "fine art". Working in a vacuum like I and most people are, just occasionally showing stuff and getting feedback, man, that's a stone drag,

We need more artists in this field. People who will push the boundaries and do things you're not supposed to do just to see what happens, then put it on a wall and exhibit it to see what people think. Maybe if that occurs we can get something going. If the general public is not that interested in this form of expression, then there's a reason. The direction of photography needs to change or it will be seen as just a way to record events. I saw more of this type of work in our online galleries when we were still analog only. Why that's made a difference is anyone's guess, but it has.

Have you dipped your toe into alt-processes at all? I only ask because I could have written this post word for single word right before I started into alt processing.

 

[foc]

I believe if you learn technique then style will follow automatically. You may then have to adjust and change your style to suit your own tastes.

 

[Vaughn]

I never thought to separate the two.

 

[KenS]

Technique and style. Like apples and oranges. Both are fruits, but different fruits. In a fruit salad, they complement one another. Eaten separately, they are just as delicious.

Since I retired, I also have started to look at and print my old negatives. For me, this was not just about revisiting my past experiences, but about how my 'style' (if I dare to call it that) evolved, and why.

I am amazed at what I now see in those old so-called 'missed' shots. Elements pop out that I somehow consciously missed at the time, but my subconscious picked up and pushed me to make the shot.

Some of my best style of images are the out-of-focus ones. Obviously, the technique/s I used to make them I regarded at the time as wrong approaches. I am now so thankful that I kept those failures.

As an architect now retired, for several decades I fussed (unnecessarily, as I now see) over keeping the verticals perfectly vertical, the exact moment when the lighting was at its best, and the elements I could remove in the foregrounds. In analogue days it was infinitely more difficult to 'edit' images in the darkroom than it now is with scanning and post-processing. My Nikkormats and Rolleiflex had to be carefully positioned to eliminate unwanted things in the foregrounds like fire hydrants, power poles, TV aerials and suchlike. I had to work almost entirely with tripods and spirit levels. In the 1980s the lenses I used (20mm, 85mm and 180mm Nikkors) usually cost more than the cameras, especially those super expensive and annoying to use PCs (perspective control, not politically correct!). All this was the 'technique' I used. The 'style' basically came out of how I presented my images to my clients or for publication or even as displays on my office walls, and in my case this mostly came out by itself, seemingly on its own, mostly out of the back parts of my brain. As I now realise when I revisit my now-ageing negatives and slides.

Now in the 21st century, my digital DSLRs and scanners have freed me from all that unwanted tyranny. Recently, an old client asked me to attend a shoot for a company brochure of an office I designed in the late '90s. An excellent lunch was offered as pro quo payment and for old time's sake I accepted for old time's sake. On the site, I was surprised (and I will admit, quite dismayed) when the photographer, a charming 20-something young lady exuding wonderful confidence and a great presence, arrived with two somewhat dated DX Nikons and 18-55 kit lenses. She obviously knew what she was doing and so I bit my tongue, but I did wonder what the results would be and how the client would react to possibly "inferior" images. My fears were groundless. The results, when I saw them, were as good as anything I could have produced with one of my Hasselblads, the standard lens for which cost more than this young photographer's entire bag of gear.

So yes, technique and style have their places in photography, but I believe it is important that we keep them separate, and not confuse one for or with the other. they are, as I have said, like apples and oranges, and while they can be enjoyed together as a salad, they are also excellent when eaten on their own.

 

[MattKing]

Technique and style influence each other.
The things you like to do, and become good at doing, influence how your work evolves.
And technique is a lot more than just accomplishing technical goals. Technique can be expressive too.
If you don't have fun in the darkroom/print making room, and you don't feel that you are creating things there, then either change what you are doing there, or get someone else to do it for you.
After a long day in the darkroom, I'm likely to be both tired and grinning!

 

[KenS]

The first question you have to 'answer' is...

Are you making this exposure 'for YOU or.... just to 'please' others who may look at the resulting image?
After you answer 'honestly' you may come to a somewhat different 'attitude' as to the 'why' you are taking the time and the effort of 'making THAT particular exposure.

My mentor (those many years ago) made the effort and took the time to make sure I got the 'correct' answer into my young thick head before allowing me to 'make' the exposure.

Ken
.

 

[VinceInMT]

...and you get to work in the light, not in the dark.

I became involved in photography in 1973 when I was in the army working all kinds of crazy shift work. Working in the dark was normal.

Much simpler and rewarding because it doesn't have to look a certain way, it just has to look good to me and resonate a little w/ the viewer.

This is where I have been for my nearly 50 years. It's always been a hobby and I've never had to satisfy anyone but myself. In fact, relatively few ever saw my work over all those years until I decided to go back to college in 2015 and pursue a BFA. While my area of concentration is drawing and painting, I have taken 3 semesters of photography. Not only is my work (drawing, painting, video, sculpture, ceramics) required to be shown, it is critiqued. It i can be humbling, energizing, and scary, sometimes all at the same time. It has forced me into looking at what I do in new ways. I have grown as a result.

 

[VinceInMT]

Have you dipped your toe into alt-processes at all? I only ask because I could have written this post word for single word right before I started into alt processing.

It's synchronicity that you asked the original poster that. I am a dedicated lab rat and it's the processes in the darkroom that have always kept me going but I'd hit a bit of a plateau and needed a kick to rekindle the passion. I signed up for Photography III this past semester at the university where I am finishing up my BFA. It is self-directed at this level and I decided I would work exclusively in alt-processes: Sabbatier, mordancage, cyanotype, and Van Dyke. While I had experience with cyanotype and Sabbatier it has been a while and the other two processes would be new. Lets just say I really got into it. While I produced some interesting pieces it was the serendipity that fired me up and pointed me in new directions for my future work. For example, I was interested in combining cyanotype and Van Dyke and it took some fiddling but finally figured out how to do it and came up with an idea for series I want to work on, possibly for my senior show a year from now.

 

[Vaughn]

A good friend has been working with mordancage for a few decades. Take heed of the acid fumes. I have been working with her a little on carbon printing as an creative alternative...she loves what most carbon printers do their best to avoid -- 'frilling' of the image.

Alternative photographic methods (alt for silver gelatin) can be either another avenue of technical exploration, or a way to free one's self from the technical...but often somewhere in between. For me, I had a set of instructions from a magazine article and no idea of what a print was suppose to look like after making up a batch of thick black Jello and pouring it onto sheets of used litho film. I ended up with prints that looked the way I wanted them to...far beyond what I thought was possible when I first undertook the journey. They had characteristics that, when I showed them for the first time at an alt photo convention (about ten years after I started), were not being used much at the time. Many do now, and people have taken the process much further these days.

I suppose I already had a 'style' before taking up carbon printing. I had been making silver gelatin prints for 14 years...decent technique, certainly still had lots to learn, and would certainly approach them very differently now with 3 decades additional experience of print-making. So that 'style' was carried over to alt process, but at the same time has evolved through the experience. The joy of manipulating the image through dodging/burning when using a 4x5 negative to make a 16x20 silver gelatin print was transformed into achieving the same joy when being able to see an image fully formed amongst the chaos that has the same power if not more as my manipulated images, and translating that into a print.

You are what you eat, so to speak.

 

[radiant]

Technique for style. Style for feeling. Feeling in story.

 

[Vaughn]

Technique for style. Style for feeling. Feeling in story. Story informs technique.
...keeping it circular...

 

[warden]

Technique for style. Style for feeling. Feeling in story. Story informs technique.
...keeping it circular...

Very nice.

 

[Ian Grant]

Techniqe and style are what you choose they aren't sepeparate they go hand in hand.

As above it's about what you want to say, your personal approach,

Ian