Finding your vision and photographic style

Christina I am going to echo what Donald stated about Alain Briot, except try going to Luminous Landscape then type in his name thus doing a search you will come up with article after article by Alain, were good and interesting reading.

Cheers: Allan

When considering an artist's style I also think of Monet's Blue Period which involved his use of cool blues and violets, ironically it was later learned that failing vision was responsible for his artistic vision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max von MeiselMaus

she is not dressing as she views herself

---

You can't know whether or not that's true until you clearly know in her own words how she views herself. I don't have that knowledge, so I have no idea if she is dressing as she views herself.

I do believe the discussion of Lady Gaga's style is pertinent to a discussion of photographic style, especially because, she, Picasso and Rembrandt were brought into the same discussion in the same post. The one thing I know with absolute clarity and certainty is that a photographer will be immensely monetarily successful if he or she is as successful selling his or her work product as Lady Gaga is at selling hers. Considering that branding is one aspect of style and that her branding is no accident, that's worth noting in my mind.

Christina,

This has been a very interesting discussion, but while I am in no way disparaging what folks have offered, I think the answer to your original question

Quote:

---

yet I wonder why one's photographic style and vision can't be eclectic

---

can be much simpler. My answer would be: of course it can.

Like Dave, I shoot many genres of photography. Some I do more poorly than others. E.g., I am a truly lousy landscape photographer, as I noted in a recent post. However, I am just in this for enjoyment, so I keep trying, often lugging my equipment up mountains even though I have almost never gotten a mountaintop view worth sharing with anyone.

For the genres I do a little better, I've developed a style. for example, my flower macros are mostly highly detailed and in focus the entire way from front to back. (What can I say? I earn my living with statistics, trying to minimize imprecision.) Many other flower photographers aim for substantial areas that are creamy and out of focus. It's not usually my taste, but sometimes I have an idea that a given image would like appealing that way, and I try it (not always so successfully). Why not try?

For example, an excellent photographer in my photo club criticized one of my flower macros for having too much detail in the petals that made up the background. He found it distracting. So, I tried again, and I got this:

https://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Flowers/...touched-XL.jpg

Not spectacular, but good enough to convince me that I ought to consider that style more often.

So, my much simpler answer would be: shoot as many genres as you enjoy shooting. For the ones you do most and best, you will probably develop a distinct style, or perhaps a small number of distinct styles. Looking at other people's work may help you to do that. When you have a vision for an image that would require a different style, go for it. Sometimes, you will succeed, other times not, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Dan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

You can't know whether or not that's true until you clearly know in her own words how she views herself. I don't have that knowledge, so I have no idea if she is dressing as she views herself.

I do believe the discussion of Lady Gaga's style is pertinent to a discussion of photographic style, especially because, she, Picasso and Rembrandt were brought into the same discussion in the same post. The one thing I know with absolute clarity and certainty is that a photographer will be immensely monetarily successful if he or she is as successful selling his or her work product as Lady Gaga is at selling hers. Considering that branding is one aspect of style and that her branding is no accident, that's worth noting in my mind.

---

Yes, there is an important point. Is one producing images for oneself or to sell? There is no denying that work that is derivative of other successful work is likely to be popular. Perhaps not as popular as the original, but it is a tried and tested formula. However, whilst derivative work might feed the artist's stomach, it is unlikely to feed their soul. So, OK, I modify my initial statement. If you want your images to be popular and sell, you can shortcut the whole creative process and choose and copy an existing photographer's style, if it is one that has proven to be popular.

And I am inferring that Gaga's style doesn't reflect her world view and personality due to its lack of coherence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max von MeiselMaus

Is one producing images for oneself or to sell?

---

The two reasons are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Continued thanks to all....

I'm delighted that I asked this question as the replies and discussion are truly enlightening providing me with insight. Lots of things to think about and ponder as I continue on my journey of learning.

Thank you to those who provided links as references for the topic, and for the good humour shared with all.

Dan, beautiful image. I would say that your flower image have a definite style as do Mike's images of glass. I'm quite confident that I could pick out one of Mike's glass images from say 50 other glass images.

Lastly thank you to all for sharing some great advice. Truly appreciated.

Christina, you are welcome. The discussion has provided some entertainment on a wet, "work from home" day. And has forced me to concretise some of my own thoughts on this, including my dislike of Lady Gaga. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

The two reasons are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

---

No, this is true. One can produce work to fulfill one's own creative drive and hope that it sells, or one can produce work for someone else and hope that it meets one's own artistic criteria. However, each scenario has its own, main goal and that determines how the work is approached. So, if you are producing work to embody your own vision and keep reminding yourself that you also need make it appeal generally so that you can sell it, you are going to compromise that vision and, perhaps, the authenticity of the piece. Conversely, if you have been asked to produce a product shot and you shoot it so that it meets your own, aesthetic criteria, it probably won't meet the needs of a product shot and please your customer. It goes back to staking out what it is you are trying to achieve before you try to achieve it and sticking with that.

I don't think there's such thing as a "definite style". Every photographer must have been inspired by another photographer or their works to pick up the camera in the first place. But IMO, if one works on a genre long enough, they may come up with their own unique creative process and if their works are widely recognised then they are successful in creating their own brand or signature for that genre. "Electic style" here may just mean inspirations from different genre or different photographer's works. From the video link, I see many influences from photographers like Russel Brown, David Lachapelle, Joel grimes, Alexia Sinclair etc... Also, about 3 years ago, Mark Rodriguez and 4 others subscribed to learn composite technique from Mark Johnson on a webinar, so I guess some of his inspirations must have been derived from Johnson's works.

Dah...talk about being out to lunch...that truly defines me...almost missed this treatise.

This boils down to the "why"...why we play with a camera and spend these obscene amounts of
time and money on this hobby, for most of us...which in my mind is absurd at it's onset.

I would submit, at least for me, it's solely ego driven. A desire to see if I could do as well in this
post retirement era as I did in my original career. It was relatively easy to judge back then...
if my patient woke after surgery, I was successful...a no-brainer decision wise for there was no
middle ground, no reshoots, no working the subject or changing things in post.

That drive for ego gratification is what drives all fiscally successful people whether it be Lady Gaga
or the myriad of other "successes" of our day. Total altruism is rare indeed.

John mentioned my smoke stuff...I would be the first to admit that my eclectic genre is blatant theft.
Every new genre that I attempt has been based on interest in someone else's work...
most, but not all, of which ends in abject failure.

The major compliant that continues to confound me is the question of competence in one's work.
Back then it was a simple answer...it was black or white...now it's based on opinions.
I can think of a no more ridicules method of judging one's competence than are taking surveys.

Nonetheless...it's a blast, keeps me off the streets and outa the bars...it's a gas, love it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chauncey

Dah...talk about being out to lunch...that truly defines me...almost missed this treatise.

This boils down to the "why"...why we play with a camera and spend these obscene amounts of
time and money on this hobby, for most of us...which in my mind is absurd at it's onset.

I would submit, at least for me, it's solely ego driven

---

For myself, the initial reason was to shoot wristwatches for sale on eBay but with the images hosted on my own website at 640x640px (back then). However, I did notice that most shots posted on a watch forum were way "better" than mine (not surprising - Ming Thein posted a lot there). Hence, exit the horrible Kodak EasyShare point-and-shoot, enter the Nikon D50 and the Nikkor 60mm macro. At that point, the learning experience began - much assisted by this fine Site.

Have said that, this thread has prompted some introspection. I now realize that, personally, my images are posted in search of reassurance rather than to impress members. As a result, my photographic vision has now changed and I am beginning to shoot in order to record my daily life and environment to the best of my technical ability. Therefore, the probability of such images being of any interest outside of my immediate family has decreased considerably.

The above statement goes along with an intense dislike of travel, even into town, so I don't encounter any exotic scenes at all and my patch of South-East Texas woodland is not exactly pretty, mostly covered with almost impenetrable shrubbery (Yaupon Holly) under cedar and oak in the main.

Christina, thanks for starting this thread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max von MeiselMaus

One can produce work to fulfill one's own creative drive and hope that it sells, or one can produce work for someone else and hope that it meets one's own artistic criteria. However, each scenario has its own, main goal and that determines how the work is approached.

---

There is such a long list of photographers highly successful at selling their images who have written and talked about the fact that the two concepts don't have to be mutually exclusive. It's understandable that they might be mutually exclusive for you (they are certainly mutually exclusive for me!) but they aren't mutually exclusive for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

There is such a long list of photographers highly successful at selling their images who have written and talked about the fact that the two concepts don't have to be mutually exclusive. It's understandable that they might be mutually exclusive for you (they are certainly mutually exclusive for me!) but they aren't mutually exclusive for everyone.

---

Yes, I don't disagree with that. One can juggle them successfully, as the photographers you refer to do, but they are forces coming from different directions (external and internal). It takes a particular sort of skill to get them to work together and not in opposition. My hat off to them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

When considering an artist's style I also think of Monet's Blue Period which involved his use of cool blues and violets, ironically it was later learned that failing vision was responsible for his artistic vision.

---

John

Funny that you mentioned about Monet, back in the high school years, apart from their last name and some of their famous works, I could never recognise the difference between Manet's and Monet's impressionism works. Also, Joel Grimes is one of my favourite photographers alive and I got a lot of inspirations from him, especially from his Rembrandt lighting works and apparently, he is colour blind.

If it has people in it and shades of brown and black, it is probably Manet. If it has landscapes and architecture, blue and green, it is probably Monet.

Here ends today's art history lesson. :)

Actually, when I was working at a gallery, we had a Manet retrospective. The number of people who came out of that disappointed. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragon76

John

Funny that you mentioned about Monet, back in the high school years, apart from their last name and some of their famous works, I could never recognise the difference between Manet's and Monet's impressionism works. Also, Joel Grimes is one of my favourite photographers alive and I got a lot of inspirations from him, especially from his Rembrandt lighting works and apparently, he is colour blind.

---

Dean and Max,

It's amazing what new and interesting facts you can find when you put those headphones on. :)

In bonsai we have masters that say study what many people do( masters and artists) And take some you like from each and there you will start to develop your own style. From there it grows

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

Dean and Max,

It's amazing what new and interesting facts you can find when you put those headphones on. :)

---

You mean the audioguides? I suspect they are very handy as an introduction, but nothing beats a proper immersion in art history. I admit to not really appreciating that until my later years. I found art history lessons rather boring when I was a student. I wanted to be out there doing it, not hearing about it. But that might just have been my tutors. I hope it is taught in a more inspiring way now.

Mark, that there is a real benefit of art history. We have a rich legacy of visual art to draw inspiration from, and not just other photographers, but painters as well. I am constantly amazed by people who take photography seriously but wouldn't dream of setting foot in an art gallery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max von MeiselMaus

You mean the audioguides? I suspect they are very handy as an introduction, but nothing beats a proper immersion in art history. I admit to not really appreciating that until my later years. I found art history lessons rather boring when I was a student. I wanted to be out there doing it, not hearing about it. But that might just have been my tutors. I hope it is taught in a more inspiring way now.

Mark, that there is a real benefit of art history. We have a rich legacy of visual art to draw inspiration from, and not just other photographers, but painters as well. I am constantly amazed by people who take photography seriously but wouldn't dream of setting foot in an art gallery.

---

Max,

The problem with art history lessons is you have to go back often to get updated information, luckily we have online sources.

We have thousands of years of important art to look at. Even the hundreds of years covered by the usual art history classes is enough to get a very good idea of the way artists have approached their work and art has developed. It places contemporary work in its historical context, which is important. Then, if you keep an eye on sources like the Saatchi Collection, you get a headsup on anything new worth looking at, either in life or via the internet. I agree, the internet is a wonderful source. I don't consider myself to be up to the minute or need to be, but I have a number of art sources in my Facebook feed and see new things I like every now and then.