Finding your vision and photographic style

[Brownbear]

I see and admire images of photographers with a definite style and true vision, yet I wonder why one's photographic style and vision can't be eclectic say like Lady Gaga (assuming one can do it well) and still work.

It's akin to shopping for shoes and ones mood at the time when deciding which pair to wear. If I'm participating in a business meeting of course I'll dress suitably to fit the dress code and occasion.

However, if I can dress as I please for the day my style and vision is dependent on my mood, ie;

Today I feel like Reese Witherspoon in the movie Wild so I'll be donning a pair of hiking boots. Tomorrow I may feel a little bohemian and wear those hiking boots with a flowery dress. The following day I might choose stilettos and a red dress, and the day after that I might be in an Audrey Hepburn mood...

I'd be interested in hearing the from others on the subject of having a definite style and photographic vision, and whether it can work if it is eclectic.

Thank you.

[xpatUSA]

I see and admire images of photographers with a definite style and true vision, yet I wonder why one's photographic style and vision can't be eclectic say like Lady Gaga (assuming one can do it well) and still work.

<>

I'd be interested in hearing the from others on the subject of having a definite style and photographic vision, and whether it can work if it is eclectic.

Thank you.

I don't fully understand the question because a "definite style" to me doesn't go with "eclectic" which appears to mean a mixture of styles, well, in art anyway. Having said that, I do get your drift because my own shots are quite inconsistent from one to the next.

Is it even possible to have but a single style for one's total scope of subjects, I wonder? For example, suppose that hypothetical style were vignetted sepia grainy prints in the style of the late 1800's.

I'm with you as to variety of both styles and subjects.

Eclecticism Roolz, OK?

[NorthernFocus]

I've read a few articles on this topic. They were all written by professional photographers using very artistic sounding language and trying to sell their workshops. When it comes down to it, most serious shooters have a style whether intentional or not. One's style is really simply preferences/prejudices applied to our images. Frankly I don't consciously stick to a style. But now thinking about it I obviously do by default. And also have different styles depending on the subject matter. For example, for waterfalls I'm one who generally prefers long ss/smooth water and well saturated colors. I also prefer small, intimate cascades or shoot only portions of larger falls. So I guess I like detail. So there you go. There is a style statement. "Dan prefers intimate scenes of small, silky cascades surrounded by vibrant colors."

[Shadowman]

It can work, you just have to ignore the negative comments. Sometimes you'll only get a few admirers but as you develop your style, it will begin to stand out among others works. Don't be afraid to work at a particular style especially if you enjoy it. Chauncey's smoke photography is a good example of a style that may be slow to be accepted, I think in Chauncey's case it's all a matter of finding the right audience and it may not be in the photography world, but perhaps the art world in general.

[Steaphany]

Christina,

An eclectic photographic style can easily be successful. Just check out the work of Mark Rodriguez:

Or the work of Brook Shaden:

Here is an episode of KelbyOne's The Grid with Mark Rodriguez

[Brownbear]

I don't fully understand the question because a "definite style" to me doesn't go with "eclectic" which appears to mean a mixture of styles, well, in art anyway. Having said that, I do get your drift because my own shots are quite inconsistent from one to the next.

Is it even possible to have but a single style for one's total scope of subjects, I wonder? For example, suppose that hypothetical style were vignetted sepia grainy prints in the style of the late 1800's.

I'm with you as to variety of both styles and subjects.

Eclecticism Roolz, OK?

Perhaps this will help clarify...

I adore soft muted colours and dreamy scenes so I could work on developing that as a photographic style, yet all scenes and subjects aren't suited to this style.

I love Matt's (Rebel) landscape images for the rich gorgeous colours and fairy tale like feel, and Donald's landscapes for the mood, tones, layers, and big skies. Manfred's colourful images with pop and beautiful detail. Terry's glamour (Loose Cannon), etc. Eclectic if Donald's portfolio had a mix of all these styles.

Or is style as simple as being consistent with a few simple things say like beautiful highlights, soft shadows, shapes and textures (all or just one factor) seen in all of Mike's imagery? And not applicable to soft or bright colours, low or high contrast, etc. Or as simple as conveying a mood in each image?

What is photographic style? (details and/or big picture vision) Why is it important? And for those who already have a photographic style I wonder if they stick with it and develop their style further as they learn, and/or mix it up to suit the subject and/or their mood. What if Picasso had also produced works like Rembrant?



Thank you.

[Mike Buckley]

For me, vision and style are two very different things. I think of the ideal vision as being able to imagine how I want the photo to look before I release the shutter. Lacking that, I at least want to know how I want it to look before I post-process it. Style is a characteristic or combination of characteristics of a photo or a collection of photos. In my case, the one characteristic that is almost always observable in my photos is simplistic composition (but that's only because I don't have the skill to make a complex composition that is also appealing).

You have Galen Rowell's book, Mountain Light. Notice that it is organized among seven chapters and that the title of each chapter is a different vision. How many styles are represented in the book and how would you define them? (I've never done that and never will because doing so is unimportant to me.)

Vision is important to most photographers because without it, most of them won't be able to consistently produce as good a photo as if they had it.

You mentioned Picasso in the context of style. He had a "blue period," which was just one of his styles. Though most classical music novices would probably not notice the differences between Beethoven's periods, most musicologists divide his music among three periods because the music of each period has distinctly different characteristics to the trained ear.

My point is that it's common that people pursuing artistic endeavors change their style from time to time at least to some extent. Photographers make images in different styles during the same period of time. As an example, why would a photographer have to be limited to doing only fashion photography when he or she wants to also make photos in other styles?

Style is an after-the-fact declaration of the characteristics of a photograph or a collection of photographs and is a lot more difficult to define. As an example, travel photography is a style of photography that can include everything from a landscape to a portrait (whether candid or posed) to a closeup of a flower and to documentary photos of of fabrics being sold at a bazaar.

On the other hand, if you want to argue that travel and fashion photography are genres rather than styles, I'll buy it. That just shows how difficult it is to define a style.

Some people like to consistently produce essentially the same style for whatever reason and some people like to produce a wide variety of styles. The only thing that is important when it comes to style is that whatever style(s) you choose meets your own personal needs.

[Brownbear]

Thank you, Mike for a wonderful explanation which is very informative, educational and especially helpful to me. The examples on style and vision you've provided are great.

Thank you to all for your replies and examples, truly insightful and helpful.

I hope others continue to add to this thread to provide insight and simply for everyone to learn from.

For me, vision and style are two very different things. I think of the ideal vision as being able to imagine how I want the photo to look before I release the shutter. Lacking that, I at least want to know how I want it to look before I post-process it. Style is a characteristic or combination of characteristics of a collection of photos. In my case, the one characteristic that is almost always observable in my photos is simplistic composition (but that's only because I don't have the skill to make a complex composition that is also appealing).

You have Galen Rowell's book, Mountain Light. Notice that it is organized among seven chapters and that the title of each chapter is a different vision. How many styles are represented in the book and how would you define them? (I've never done that and never will because doing so is unimportant to me.)

Vision is important to most photographers because without it, most of them won't be able to consistently produce as good a photo as if they had it.

You mentioned Picasso in the context of style. He had a "blue period," which was just one of his styles. Though most classical music novices would probably not notice the differences between Beethoven's periods, most musicologists divide his music among three periods because the music of each period has distinctly different characteristics to the trained ear.

My point is that it's common that people pursuing artistic endeavors change their style from time to time at least to some extent. Photographers make images in different styles during the same period of time. As an example, why would a photographer have to be limited to doing only fashion photography when he or she wants to also make photos in other styles?

Style is an after-the-fact declaration of the characteristics of a photograph or a collection of photographs and is a lot more difficult to define. As an example, travel photography is a style of photography that can include everything from a landscape to a portrait (whether candid or posed) to a closeup of a flower and to documentary photos of of fabrics being sold at a bazaar. Some people like to consistently produce essentially the same style for whatever reason and some people like to produce a wide variety of styles.

On the other hand, if you want to argue that travel photography is more a genre than a style, I'll buy it. That just shows how difficult it is to define a style.

The only thing that is important when it comes to style is that whatever style(s) you choose meets your own personal needs.

[John 2]

Christina, I don't think that I would look good in mountain boots and a dress - well not the boots anyway.

To me, Vision is the ability to see, find or create images that hopefully (but not always) others wouldn't otherwise appreciate. Style is the way in which you present that vision with the added proviso that in order to be called a style, that presentation must have at least a degree of longevity and consistency. Vision is (IMHO) inextricably linked to ideas. Style develops over time as you begin to understand your own preferences. Both grow from experience (not necessarily photographic experience).

Are both necessary to be a good photographer? I would hesitantly believe that a good photographer would need vision but might well be eclectic in his/her approach to presenting work. It might also be that such a photographer would be better described as a visionary photographer given that the someone who is consistently competent and capable to meet the artisan demands of a job without the need for flair might also fairly be called a good photographer.

All sounds a bit esoteric when I read it back but for what its worth........

[tao2]

I see and admire images of photographers with a definite style and true vision, yet I wonder why one's photographic style and vision can't be eclectic say like Lady Gaga (assuming one can do it well) and still work.

It's akin to shopping for shoes and ones mood at the time when deciding which pair to wear. If I'm participating in a business meeting of course I'll dress suitably to fit the dress code and occasion.

However, if I can dress as I please for the day my style and vision is dependent on my mood, ie;

Today I feel like Reese Witherspoon in the movie Wild so I'll be donning a pair of hiking boots. Tomorrow I may feel a little bohemian and wear those hiking boots with a flowery dress. The following day I might choose stilettos and a red dress, and the day after that I might be in an Audrey Hepburn mood...

I'd be interested in hearing the from others on the subject of having a definite style and photographic vision, and whether it can work if it is eclectic.

Thank you.

Hi Christina,

Surely all good photography should be/is eclectic? Ah think any photographer with a definite "style" quickly goes out of fashion. Ye can only take so much of heroin chic! Ah don't have a garden, have no interest in having one-no interest in horticulture but really enjoy photographing flowers and especially leaves. Ah can do the standard magazine flower but prefer tae look for the small unnoticed parts. Ah shoot candid and street. Rarely, landscapes. Ye can't get much farther apart than Impressionism and Japanese prints but both hold a fascination for me and influence how ah shoot.

Ah definitely don't have a style and certainly no "true vision"; ah just like taking photos. Ah shoot mostly film and spend as little time in PP as possible - rather be outside taking more photos. The two photographers linked by Steaphany ah find not in the least eclectic but bound by a fashionable, stylised, rigidity that leaves me bereft. Nae soul... So if that's a style or vision, gimme eclecticism.

PS Had a girlfriend, years ago who loved tae wear dirndl dresses(aprons as well), with blood red Doc Martens boots so for all they happy memories, ah'd go for the flowery dress and boots every time (not for me tae wear but tae admire)

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Christina,

I'm not sure my thoughts are going to help you much here, or others - since I'm an analytical kinda guy, but here goes anyway ...

If we shoot a wide range of genres (e.g. landscape, wildlife, macro, still life, street), it is impossible for me to consider a single 'style' that could be consistently applied across those and be 'successful'.

I guess we could just make a point of always placing the subject in say, the lower right quarter of the image, with a lot of negative space in the rest of the image - but I suspect it would soon become frustrating to viewers with an interest in one particular genre ("why did they waste the rest of the frame?")

I guess we could always shoot square and monochrome, but even Donald makes exceptions sometimes

I guess we could always shoot backlit, but again, what does that achieve?

Take a wildlife shot - I'm thinking of your Herons - what 'style' could you apply to that?
Anyone interested in GBHs is likely to be frustrated by anything other than a well framed, technically well executed image, aren't they?


As I say, I'm an analytical/literal guy, so perhaps I'm taking things too far to extremes here.


Just shoot what you like, how you like - see what comes out and don't worry about it. Isn't that 'being eclectic'?

That said, if you/we feel like a challenge, then yes, you/we could impose a limitation (aka 'style'?) on our shooting and/or PP to produce a consistent style, or presentation, to our images.

To me, this is 'setting a vision'; you're/we're thinking about achieving a certain result before you/we take the shot.

This could vary from consistent use of; subject, aspect ratio, lighting, composition, focal length, tonality, saturation, DoF, even focus.

Ultimately, how much effort we put in to it determines how 'successful' we might be - clearly the two artists that Steaphany provided links to, put a lot of effort in to theirs.

However, because these things are subjective, particularly if 'over-used' (as some may see it), less people (overall) are likely to enjoy them - so it's only worth doing if you/we enjoy it (and to heck with the others, what do they know, eh?).

Understandably, if we do something too much, we eventually get bored and move on - we change style, or the music composer moves to a different 'period'.

Personally, I (used to) shoot a given subject type until I got as good as I could, for the effort I was willing/able to put in, then moved on. However, I've kinda lost my mojo, hence not shooting or showing much - my photography isn't that good and how many more mediocre pictures of a bird/bug/plane does the world need? I like to 'make a difference' and I don't think I'm good enough to achieve that taking pictures myself - I feel my free time is better spent here, trying to help people, relying largely on theory and analysis - although I do worry that I'm so rusty that perhaps I'd do a better job if I 'got out more'. Perhaps I will one day.


Like I said above; just shoot what you like, how you like - see what comes out and don't worry about it.

That's either 'very deep', or 'very shallow' (or just plain rubbish), I couldn't possibly say which

[Mike Buckley]

just shoot what you like, how you like - see what comes out and don't worry about it.

Completely agreed when it comes to satisfying needs of a hobby. However, when trying to make money, characteristics of the target market also inevitably have to be taken into account and those characteristics might conflict with shooting only what you like to shoot and how you like to shoot it.

[John 2]

....................If we shoot a wide range genres of genres (e.g. landscape, wildlife, macro, still life, street), it is impossible for me to consider a single 'style' that could be consistently applied across those and be 'successful'.............................

I think you make a good point Dave. If you consider say Cecil Beaton or Karsh, both definitely have a very recognisable style but differ from other photographers in that they specialised in just one field. Bill Brandt on the other hand had a more eclectic portfolio and (I would say) except as a result of his better known images, wouldn't be as immediately recognisable from a style in his work. All three however, had the vision to produce iconic work.

[Donald]

I think the above has been a fascinating discussion on a subject that is close to my heart.

My contribution to the discussion (so much good stuff has been said already) is to say that my own thinking was hugely informed by a series of articles I read and which I've referenced on here many times before.

These were by US-based French photographer, Alain Briot and published on the Nature Photographer's website. If you go to http://www.naturephotographers.net/farchives.html and then scroll down to the April 2009 list you will find the first of these. Then follow the trail up through May, June and July 2009. These 4 papers made a huge contribution to my thinking and development. They may also do so for you.

[Max von MeiselMaus]

I would argue that, if you are producing work that fulfills your artistic goals, then it will have a style. Your style. You don't have to try. You probably won't recognise it, as it is too close to you, but others will. If you don't have artistic goals (so, haven't identified what you are trying to achieve) or the technical ability to achieve them, then these areas need more work.

It sounds as though "eclectic" might mean "unfocused" here. So, producing images with no vision or concept behind them, making them seem incoherent. One can try out various approaches and concepts, as Picasso did, but flitting like a butterfly from one to the other seems to be lacking in commitment.

And, to return to the Lady Gaga analogy (at the risk of stretching it until it breaks), she is "eclectic" because there appears to be no individual vision behind how she presents. It is all purely for effect. She is spooling through countless, different looks, chosen only because they are controversial. Compare with David Bowie, who went through many, different looks. However, each look was part of how he was seeing things at the time. Across that patricular period, the look, the music and his philosophy were coherent, until he moved onto the next experiment. Or Leigh Bowery, whose vision of what was "beautiful" was entirely unique. It was not intended to be shocking, it was just intended to be him.

So, what I am fumbling in saying here is that an artist's "style" emerges from their foundational concepts. These can change over time, but without those concepts and commitment to them, the work can seem incoherent and disjointed. So, decide what you want to do and why first then strive to produce images that meet that goal. Thereby your own, individual style will emerge.

[Mike Buckley]

And, to return to the Lady Gaga analogy (at the risk of stretching it until it breaks), she is "eclectic" because there appears to be no individual vision behind how she presents. It is all purely for effect. She is spooling through countless, different looks, chosen only because they are controversial.

She explained in an interview that this characteristic, by design, is her branding. I don't remember whether she explicitly stated that her branding is designed to be controversial.

[Max von MeiselMaus]

I am not sure I understand that, Mike. What was she saying her brand was intended to be? I can see no coherence in it. She has worn designs by various, unrelated designers. I wouldn't look at someone's outfit and say "That is so Lady Gaga". I would say "That is very Alexander McQueen/Whoever".

I am risking going off topic here as I just can't stand the woman.

[Manfred M]

I've been fairly quiet on this subject (it's been a very busy week) and would like to add my own perspective to these discussions. We had a bit of a discussion on this subject at the Photographic Portfolio course I took about 6 months ago.

Style is something we started seeing among the 20 or so students taking the course. As this was the "last" course photography program at the local community college, the participants had (in theory) pretty good technical and compositional skills having learned all this "stuff" in previous courses.

I think it starts with the "vision" that Christina points out. Virtually every photographer will see a subject differently and will approach how that photograph is taken from a slightly different approach. The framing, lens and focal length choice all contribute to what we start out with and sets the foundation as to what the final image will look like.

The second part of our style is what we do with our image in post-production. For some photographers this had very little to do with their style; Henri Cartier-Bresson spent no time in the darkroom and handed all of his rolls of film over to someone else to process and print them whereas Ansel Adams spent a lot of time manipulating his negatives and his prints in the darkroom.

I personally find that I tend to be more in the Adam's camp than the Cartier-Bresson camp. I spend some time in post tweaking the image that came out of the camera. I think have always done that as even in the wet darkroom, I did a bit of dodging and burning and added vignettes, and that has carried over into my digital darkroom days.

When I look at my own approach to photography, I like doing a few things. I shoot for the "main" subject, but also want to present an image that lets the viewer dig deeper if he or she wants to. I like images with broad tonal ranges (both in colour and monochrome) and I like images that have "pop", as Christina has noted. When I look back at my earlier work, I can see my self heading in those directions, even though I was probably not consciously doing so.

[Mike Buckley]

I am not sure I understand that, Mike. What was she saying her brand was intended to be?

I don't remember. She might have said that it was meant to be controversial, as you contend. Or she might not have clarified what her branding was intended to be. I only remember that she very clearly explained that her look is part of her very carefully designed branding.

I can see no coherence in it. She has worn designs by various, unrelated designers. I wouldn't look at someone's outfit and say "That is so Lady Gaga". I would say "That is very Alexander McQueen/Whoever".

Perhaps that is exactly what she wants her brand to be. Her branding is certainly unconventional and in my opinion won't be fully appreciated when viewed within the context of conventional criteria.

[Max von MeiselMaus]

Yup, but at the risk of derailing the conversation (or perhaps it is pertinent), she is not dressing as she views herself and the world and sod convention (like Leigh Bowery did), she is taking other people's styles (including Bowery's) and using or copying them to look unconventional. The pertinence to this discussion is that she herself has no driving, authentic vision that happens to produce an unconventional outcome; her look. She is instead starting from the effect, unconventionality, and using the product of other people's vision to achieve it. It therefore looks forced and fake. And incoherent, as she picks many designer's visions to produce the effect.

So, yes. She is known for her unconventional look, but there is nothing behind it. It is like an artist who copies Picasso's cubist style without even having any understanding of what the ideological basis was behind it, let alone wanting to experiment with representation in the same way that he did. That is not to say an artist should never copy another artist's work. It is done all the time in art college, to stretch the student's technique and encourage them to see through another person's eyes. However, it is not enough when producing your own work. Hence my emphasis on developing your own concepts and vision, rather than trying, self-consciously, to force a "style" on one's work. It just won't look authentic, in the same way that Gaga doesn't.