Struggle for identity in your images

[mrkgoo]

How do you further develop a 'style'? It's important in photography to communicate your mind's eye - to tell a story. We all know this is a key ingredient into making photographs and images, but how to you develop this?

No matter how hard one tries, you can nearly always find that someone else has done the same thing, or has an identical image. How important is it to be 'unique' in photography? Is it more important than begin good?

What do you do about making images, and developing further?

[Mark1]

Style, for me, is more of a result, than a goal. I can look back and see what I have done that might be considered a style. But I have never shot anything while trying to make it fit into a style. Unless it has been specifically requested.

You ask about the unique/good ratio. Well it totally depends on how good vs. how unique. No matter how unique you are you do need at least a level of proficiency. Or you could be technically perfect but it will not help a sterile lifeless image. There can be gorgeous images that are awful technically. And technically perfect images that are worthless.

As with everything in photography there is no 1 answer. It is a mix of everything. How you ballence that mix is what makes your style.

[nicksan]

How do you further develop a 'style'? It's important in photography to communicate your mind's eye - to tell a story. We all know this is a key ingredient into making photographs and images, but how to you develop this?

No matter how hard one tries, you can nearly always find that someone else has done the same thing, or has an identical image. How important is it to be 'unique' in photography? Is it more important than begin good?

What do you do about making images, and developing further?

Developing a unique style is always a difficult thing with arts in general.

My philosophy is to shoot what you see. Easier said than done, but it works for me, much like "play what you hear" works for me in music. I am not overly concerned with being unique because you can't force uniqueness. I don't agree with being unique for the sake of being unique. You can almost always spot forced uniqueness.

Fundamentals are important. Theory is important. But sooner or later we need to let go of them in order to develop our own style.

[gonzogolf]

I think the concept of a style for photographers is a double edged sword. Its useful if you are a commercial photographer, especially a portrait photographer who needs to be able to demonstrate an ability to produce similar images from one job to another. But for someone who is exploring photography as a creative artist style can be limiting. If you shoot something enough to develop a style it could be that you are limiting yourself to a range of tools, and techniques that will keep you in a particular creative box. I remember one prolific poster here for awhile who took lots of portraits of people with wide angle lenses, fairly close, with lots of tilts. I asked him why he took the same photo over and over again and he replied "Dude, thats my style". It was a reminder of me to avoid too much of a style.

[bongo fury]

A true artist will usually develop certain traits in all their work. It doesn't mean you need to limit yourself to certain subjects.

[mrkgoo]

Interesting thoughts. Thanks for the comments. Something to ponder!

[Digital_zen]

I'm with gonzo on this one. We should start an "anti-style photographer's guild" like the linked ring, or group f-64, but emphasize experimentation, and shooting outside your comfort zone as often as possible.

[Karl Johnston]

I think style is identified by the public, or the people who see and view and buy your work. Over time the more you shoot the more of a trend you get with yourself, or your work, or interpretation of the work which is similar to something else someone has seen and thus names you for it. Or makes someone feel something, and they name you for it.

I'm finding more and more people question whether I'm a photographer or a painter, and the more they do the more they refer to me as a painter by accident..thus a photographer that creates pictures so hyper-real that they look like paintings.

[Ruhan]

Susan Sontag described "style" a little differently and it changed the way I perceived it as well. In her treatise on photography she states that anyone can pick up a camera and point and click, but that it takes years to be able to present the world as you see it. It's a view of the world through your eyes. The day when you take a photo which represents not just the way your subject looked but the way you felt about it, is the day you have started developing a style.

Mark1 above is absolutely correct in saying that achieving a style is more of a result than a goal. I found it took me a few years before a style emerged that I could call my own. As we all continue to change and grow old, that style will be evolving till the day I die.

Having said that, I would not call using a specific setup (like the example regarding wide angle lenses) a style. That's just a comfort zone. The moment we stop experimenting we stop growing as photographers and ideally through experimentation we learn a multitude of ways to create our photos to represent the world as we see it.

[neilwood32]

I'm with gonzo on this one. We should start an "anti-style photographer's guild" like the linked ring, or group f-64, but emphasize experimentation, and shooting outside your comfort zone as often as possible.

Even the "anti style" photographers such as f-64 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_f/64) still had a style.

A "style" is something that i think comes in time - you look back and find that your images do have a common thread or link between them.

My style (if I have one) is to portay what I see in the best way possible without excessive manipulation. However it would be possible to go to the opposite (adding new skies if the existing were too boring or cloning out trees/people)

Do what you feel you want to with your images and you will end up with a style eventually.

[timbop]

I don't know if it counts as a style, but over time I have come to realize what I like and don't like in my images. More importantly, I have learned how to adjust my position/settings/equipment/etc so that I can somewhat coax those characteristics out of a particular subject. I also have learned when those techniques won't work, and am able take a different strategy that still makes an interesting subject. Sometimes that means copying someone else's style, but most of the time with my own approach.

Unfortunately there are still many times that I don't get an interesting image that has the qualities I like, but that is OK because life would be boring if there weren't new challenges

[HappySnapper90]

A style is what you'll end up with after a concerted effort in an art form. You can certainly try to consciously create a certain style by design, but often it's just the result that ends up being an overlying theme or look to what you produce.

And many artists have their style morph and change with the years as often is the case with musicians. Compare Aerosmith's first 3 albums with their latest 3 - huge difference!

[neilwood32]

A style is what you'll end up with after a concerted effort in an art form. You can certainly try to consciously create a certain style by design, but often it's just the result that ends up being an overlying theme or look to what you produce.

And many artists have their style morph and change with the years as often is the case with musicians. Compare Aerosmith's first 3 albums with their latest 3 - huge difference!

Nice choice of analogy - I like them all!:D

[cdifoto]

I don't have a style. I just aim for crisp, clear, fadless images. I like my images to appear as though one is actually there. I don't always achieve it, but I keep trying.

[Ruhan]

I don't have a style. I just aim for crisp, clear, fadless images. I like my images to appear as though one is actually there. I don't always achieve it, but I keep trying.

Isn't that just point and click?

[cdifoto]

Isn't that just point and click?

Give it a try some time. ;)

[Ruhan]

Give it a try some time. ;)

Well then maybe that is your style. There really are no rules in photography and it is about expression. More power to ya. :cool:

[cdifoto]

Seriously, if you really think it's just point and click, slap your camera in auto and give it a whirl.

[Ruhan]

Seriously, if you really think it's just point and click, slap your camera in auto and give it a whirl.

I asked you if that is what you meant. If there is no interpretation of an event or place evident in your image, then isn't it just point and click. I wasn't trying to dismiss your style just asking for you to elaborate.

We all see the world differently so for you to take a photo of what you see it by default implies that you have a style.

[cdifoto]

I asked you if that is what you meant. If there is no interpretation of an event or place evident in your image, then isn't it just point and click. I wasn't trying to dismiss your style just asking for you to elaborate.

We all see the world differently so for you to take a photo of what you see it by default implies that you have a style.

I don't really even consider it a style because I'm not spinning it in any way. I'm just saying it's not as simple as it sounds either because cameras are dumb and it requires my equally dumb ass to get everything right. :lol:

Of course the only thing I'm interested in is people and their events (mostly weddings) so it requires good timing, lighting, posing, interaction, speed, and energy as well.