discussion about vision and creating a personal style

I have come across some excellent articles on the topics of photographer's "vision", and how it is to be used to create a personal style. the articles are written by landscape photographer Alain Briot.

Here is a link to the first article in the "Vision" series (it is part one of six), entitled, Vision - part 1: From Passion to Vision
http://www.luminous-landscape.com …m_passion_to_vi​sion.shtml

Here on POTN, we often see the terms "vision" and "unique personal style" used - yet seldom are these terms explained and discussed. In these articles, Alain defines these terms, and discusses them at length.

Here is an excerpt from the first article in the series:

Vision is seeing what others do not see. Vision is also seeing something in our mind that is different from what is physically in front of us. Vision is something that starts in the mind, at the crossroads of what we see physically and what we imagine. Vision may be generated by the subject we are photographing. Or vision may cause us to look for a specific subject that we want to photograph.

Either way vision starts with an idea that later becomes a physical photograph. Imagination and creativity are at the origin of vision.

Vision and personal style are directly related. Vision is what we see in our mind. Personal style is how we represent what we see in our mind through photography or other medium.
- Alain Briot

If anyone finds these topics interesting, I would be glad to post the links to the other articles in the series.

It would also be great if we could discuss these topics here in this thread. I would be interested in having any of you share what vision has meant to you, and possibly answer / discuss the following questions:

1. What is it that you envision? Do you have difficulty expressing this in your photos? If so, what is keeping you from capturing what you see in your mind's eye with your camera?

2. What do you want to "say" with your imagery? What thoughts and emotions would you like to convey to the viewer?

3. Have you determined what, exactly, your "personal style" will be? If so, how would you describe your personal style?

I think thats a good write up. Vision happens internally, and vision is expressed through personal style. Your questions are broad and difficult to answer, so I'll skip them.

Vision comes from who you are, it is who you are, every photograph has a piece of you in it. Vision is thoughts, ideas, born out of experience. Vision is internal, you just have to find it, and a lot of people never bother.

The best tool to get your vision across, and define your personal style, is discipline. Discipline is free, its not something you need to go out and buy, or read a hundred reviews for, all you have to do is employ it. Sounds easy, but with a creative medium such as photography, its the hardest tool to use. Discipline gives way to consistency, and without consistency, there is no personal style.

He makes a good point.
I don't claim to have a personal style &/or produce "Fine Art", & I haven't had any "Visions" since the '70s, but I do like to play with motion blur at times.

For example: "Nightmare Cruise" with a happy ending.

And one of my personal favorites:

I think vision can sometimes be a bit elusive to define, although the comments made so far, including the OP, have done a good job of mapping it out.

I'm sure some folks might see it as a throwaway word sometimes, something overused or perhaps too pretentious, like the word 'art.'

But vision is really what lies at the core of good photography. It's not necessarily measurable, and it's very fluid.

I suppose it becomes like a set of artistically inclined software instructions that can operate with deliberation or spontaneity. That is, while pre-visualization can be a component of vision, vision is not just pre-visualization; it's not solely 'seeing' an idea to be photographed later, since it can also help inform the immediate.

For me, it's not so much a matter of seeing what others don't, but instead seeing what I didn't see before. It is an evolving process to continually improve my aesthetic grasp of line, shape, light, shadow, form, and compositional balance and dynamic.

Like many 'street photographers' (or people who go outside and photo things), I seldom have any idea what I'm going to photograph. It's a matter of chance encounter to some extent, but whether it's a moving target or a static subject, there is typically some visual element that will draw me.

It is underlying vision that gives this element, interpretatively, its aesthetic appeal. And therefor, how one's vision develops reflects on how aesthetics is interpreted. And of course, all of this is, to a large degree, a personal process.

I'm going to repost something I wrote in another thread as I believe it'll fit right in here (written in response to a poster worrying that he might just be doing the same thing over and over again because someone said they recognized his work):

In addition to that, I also believe there are two styles: form and substance. You can have a distinctive visual style that you apply to a variety of subjects, or a coherence of subject that you'll show in a variety of ways.

And you can also have a consistent approach to aesthetics and subject, which is how people come to recognize your work. I too can tell an Allen image before I see his name, because he mostly stays consistent in aesthetic and subject. That's how you form your identity, consistency.

I read an interview with Meyerowitz where he talks about 2 different kinds of photographers, those that find what works and stick to it indefinitely, and those that reinvent themselves from time to time, which he claimed to be the later. The reason that works for him is that he sticks to the tool or the aesthetic or the subject long enough (years) to form an identity, which is very different from a previous one, but still distinctively him. There's plenty of cases of both kinds of photographers, but the key in all instances is consistency.