POST YOUR BEST B&W SHOTS! (2)

garryknight wrote in post #19485029
Thanks. That indicates that I'm kind of zeroing in on a recognisable style, albeit slowly.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #19485034
Yep a huge compliment....

I wonder why this is celebrated as an ideal. Isn't there something to be said for versatility?

garryknight wrote in post #19485029
Thanks. That indicates that I'm kind of zeroing in on a recognisable style, albeit slowly.

I call it the "Rule of Knight"

OhLook wrote in post #19485080
I wonder why this is celebrated as an ideal. Isn't there something to be said for versatility?

Lets see Ansul Adams , Rembrandt, Monet, Whistler ...Willy Nelson, Whitney Houston, Trans Siberian Orchestra All have recognizable styles so I think its not so much an ideal but a compliment.

OhLook wrote in post #19485080
I wonder why this is celebrated as an ideal. Isn't there something to be said for versatility?

Most of the greats all had their own style. Westons peppers looked like his nudes. His nudes looked like his clouds that looked like his shells that looked like his clouds that looked like his nudes that looked like his peppers. You know a Weston when you see one. Style is usually very versatile. It's just whatever one photographs there is a visual signature as Ralph Gibson calls it. And it takes a conscious effort to develop and can take a very long time to get there. In my opinion the best compliment a photographer can get is that someone knows a photograph is a certain photographers before they see the signature.

OhLook wrote in post #19485080
I wonder why this is celebrated as an ideal. Isn't there something to be said for versatility?

I'm not sure we're making it an "ideal". Rather celebrating a style unique to, in this instance, Garry.
That can't be replicated, cloned. It's his stamp all over his photos.
There's others here, and elsewhere that says "this is a product of XYZ"
And, as airfrogusmc says "a huge compliment".
It's what makes them uniquely different, and to me shows their mastery of their chosen vocation.

AginKajun wrote in post #19485097
Lets see Ansul Adams , Rembrandt, Monet, . . . All have recognizable styles so I think its not so much an ideal but a compliment.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #19485108
Most of the greats all had their own style. . . . And it takes a conscious effort to develop and can take a very long time to get there.

avondale87 wrote in post #19485129
I'm not sure we're making it an "ideal". . . .There's others here, and elsewhere that says "this is a product of XYZ" . . . It's what makes them uniquely different, and to me shows their mastery of their chosen vocation.

I appreciate all your efforts to explain, but I still don't get why having greater breadth or variety in one's artistic output would mean being valued less than if all one's works look somewhat alike.

If all my photos had the same "mysterious something" that made them recognizable as mine, it'd be because I had certain sensibilities and applied them over and over to whatever I shot. This might be seen as a narrowing of the possibilities. If I then did something completely different that didn't fit my usual pattern, why wouldn't it be viewed as a creative step forward? Can a photographer have two or three styles instead of one and still be well regarded?

avondale87 wrote in post #19485129
I'm not sure we're making it an "ideal". Rather celebrating a style unique to, in this instance, Garry.
That can't be replicated, cloned. It's his stamp all over his photos.
There's others here, and elsewhere that says "this is a product of XYZ"
And, as airfrogusmc says "a huge compliment".
It's what makes them uniquely different, and to me shows their mastery of their chosen vocation.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #19485108
Most of the greats all had their own style. Westons peppers looked like his nudes. His nudes looked like his clouds that looked like his shells that looked like his clouds that looked like his nudes that looked like his peppers. You know a Weston when you see one. Style is usually very versatile. It's just whatever one photographs there is a visual signature as Ralph Gibson calls it. And it takes a conscious effort to develop and can take a very long time to get there. In my opinion the best compliment a photographer can get is that someone knows a photograph is a certain photographers before they see the signature.

You guys are far more eloquent with the English language than I am..

OhLook wrote in post #19485142
I appreciate all your efforts to explain, but I still don't get why having greater breadth or variety in one's artistic output would mean being valued less than if all one's works look somewhat alike.

If all my photos had the same "mysterious something" that made them recognizable as mine, it'd be because I had certain sensibilities and applied them over and over to whatever I shot. This might be seen as a narrowing of the possibilities. If I then did something completely different that didn't fit my usual pattern, why wouldn't it be viewed as a creative step forward? Can a photographer have two or three styles instead of one and still be well regarded?

Ohlook I'm wondering if you're looking at this differently to what some of us are saying.
I'm not and don't read others are also, saying anything about being stuck in a mode and not progressing or moving on,sideways or other.
But if, when they do, theres something about the outcome that says it's his or hers. Nothing about being the same style but stamped with a makers mark if that's a simple illustration.
Might be subtle but "its" there

avondale87 wrote in post #19485145
Ohlook I'm wondering if you're looking at this differently to what some of us are saying.

It seems so. I've tried to describe what I believe is a different opinion from the orthodox one.

garryknight wrote in post #19485029
Thanks. That indicates that I'm kind of zeroing in on a recognisable style, albeit slowly.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #19485034
Yep a huge compliment....

Thanks, Allen. That's how I took it.

avondale87 wrote in post #19485050
Gary your photos are definitely stamped with your style
And a very pleasant one it is too.

Thanks. It's still very much a work in progress.

OhLook wrote in post #19485080
I wonder why this is celebrated as an ideal. Isn't there something to be said for versatility?

Like others, I don't think of it as an ideal. Versatility can be a good thing just as having a style can be a good thing in photography. Only shooting a preferred category of photos, such as flowers (Magda Indigo) or babies (Martha Geddes) can be a good thing. Always telling stories or documenting society can be a good thing. This is what I love about photography - there are so many good things.

OhLook wrote in post #19485148
It seems so. I've tried to describe what I believe is a different opinion from the orthodox one.

If you look at many art forms you see many of the greats had a style. How they were able to put some of themselves in their art. Hemingway had a writing style that was unique to him. No matter what the subject he was writing about, his writing style still comes through. When you hear just a few notes from say Jeff Beck or John Coltrane you know it is them. A Beethoven piece, you know it's Beethoven. Van Gogh you know its a Van Gogh. It's about not following others but finding ones own path. Thats not limiting but once one finds it is very freeing.

garryknight wrote in post #19485233

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2oiP​BMR
Building Scaffold by Garry Knight, on Flickr

Now, I don't think that one is in your instantly recognisable style, so a vote for versatility. But I could be wrong. Interesting discussion.