Personal style?

[sid_v]

hello,

Recently while doing Benjamins 'In the wind' reverse engineering, I'm getting a bit influenced by the lighting style. Specially the casual yet precisely plcaed hard side lighting. And this has been happening since years. I need my own style, i neeed my OWN style...i need my own style...mumbling to myself

Still on the way to find the style that defines me. How in the world did you stop on this lighting and say....this is gonna be my style. I just can't do that. Everytime i discover by practise or reverse engineering some new lighting, i feel like putting it in my knowledge bank and move forward. It's never ending and i'm running out of styles..hehe...NEED HELP....maybe, Benjamin,  write a post on this topic(i'm sure i am gonna rant about it in my blog) ...Avedon had his own style, Lindbergh, La Chapelle, Roversi and so on....even greenberg and dave hill have this overprocessed style... BUT there are Annie and Demarchelier who are legends, but don't own a style. They just create images that work with whatever is the current trend. And THEY are the ones who are still doing all the hot shot jobs.

Would like to hear inputs ....

sid.

[LiamStrain]

I have been told by my clients I have a style. But I sure can't identify it. I make images that solve their needs the way I know how. Apparently, over time, I've done that in a recognizable way. To them anyway. I have no idea what makes a shot "mine."

I guess when you are shooting the way YOU want, and not the way you are told (or trend following) then that is your style, and over time you might be able to pinpoint trends within it.

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

I think you develop style when you combine your taste and sense of things to your understanding of technique, for example lighting, to create something unique.  This usually takes much thought about how picture elements interact. Once you achieve that you can manipulate such elements to your unique style.

By the way I don't think personal style always results in better pictures. For all of his style, Ben's photos never appealed to me. In fact, I always thought to my self when I saw his shots " what an ugly style", probably not so much the lighting as much as the models, poses and clothing though. On the other hand I liked your tutorial photos even though they are standard style pictures.

[pcunite]

Having a style is about being a true artist. Most of us can only hope to have a steady income while also being an artist at the same time. The reality is we shoot for money which in the commercial world means just about any style. Your going to go crazy trying to emulate different styles, you will find out that you will easily be able to do them... this is not rocket science. The sad part is that the whole time you will be unfulfilled while chasing this rabbit. Step away from the Internet and start to think about what you want to shoot and how you want to present it. Then go do that. Put it under your "Personal" section of your website and hopefully you will get paid to shoot that style some day.

[sid_v]

Having a style is about being a true artist. Most of us can only hope to have a steady income while also being an artist at the same time. The reality is we shoot for money which in the commercial world means just about any style. Your going to go crazy trying to emulate different styles, you will find out that you will easily be able to do them... this is not rocket science. The sad part is that the whole time you will be unfulfilled while chasing this rabbit.

Sad but true.

[CBarrett]

People think I have style, but to be honest, my wife picks out my clothes.

[Rob C]

Style? It all comes down to your personal taste: you don't try to manipulate shots into reflecting it, it is just there as what you do.

Perhaps an easier and more definable exercise can be found in what you like to see in the work of other photographers. As an example: years - decades - ago, when I used to buy Playboy, my mother-in-law would pop round to visit my wife and she'd thumb through the magazine guessing which shots I'd rave about. Trust me, n¡nety percent of the time, perhaps more, she was right. It always boiled down to much the same thing: longish hair, backlit images with a gentle sensuality as against 'tough' looking women. Strumpets were not cutting it, in my eyes, but angels were. These things are emotions and they govern you, not the other way around.

Returning to personal style as distinct from style that excites one, I'd offer the thought that attempting a self-conscious stylistic development is a route to paralysis. Just do what you do only better.

I hate to say it, but I think this is just an extension of the dream of having someone 'teach' you how to be a photographer and comes to a halt on the same level: you can be taught mechanics but not taste or vision, which is much the same thing.

Rob C

[stamper]

Style? It all comes down to your personal taste: you don't try to manipulate shots into reflecting it, it is just there as what you do.

Perhaps an easier and more definable exercise can be found in what you like to see in the work of other photographers. As an example: years - decades - ago, when I used to buy Playboy, my mother-in-law would pop round to visit my wife and she'd thumb through the magazine guessing which shots I'd rave about. Trust me, n¡nety percent of the time, perhaps more, she was right. It always boiled down to much the same thing: longish hair, backlit images with a gentle sensuality as against 'tough' looking women. Strumpets were not cutting it, in my eyes, but angels were. These things are emotions and they govern you, not the other way around.

Returning to personal style as distinct from style that excites one, I'd offer the thought that attempting a self-conscious stylistic development is a route to paralysis. Just do what you do only better.

I hate to say it, but I think this is just an extension of the dream of having someone 'teach' you how to be a photographer and comes to a halt on the same level: you can be taught mechanics but not taste or vision, which is much the same thing.

Rob C

Rob, a very insightful reply! One that I will be thinking about. A local commercial photographer who I have met based his style on a particular duo toned colour. It was purplish and he used it on wedding images. He claimed that photographers in the circle he moved in could tell it was him that took a particular image by looking at it. Others copied him and he had to find another"style" to try and identify himself. I think this idea of style is like shifting sands. Personally I think it is an unconscious way of doing things?

[BernardLanguillier]

hello,

Recently while doing Benjamins 'In the wind' reverse engineering, I'm getting a bit influenced by the lighting style. Specially the casual yet precisely plcaed hard side lighting. And this has been happening since years. I need my own style, i neeed my OWN style...i need my own style...mumbling to myself

Yes, I purchased a personnal style second hand on ebay last fall.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ErikKaffehr]

Bernard,

That's nice! Can you post a test?!


Joke aside, it's probably best to have a style that differentiates from the competition but does not alienate costumers.

Best regards
Erik

Yes, I purchased a personnal style second hand on ebay last fall.

Cheers,
Bernard

[pcunite]

Yes, I purchased a personnal style second hand on ebay last fall.

Exactly, most of us need to focus on our local markets (sections of thought) instead of the entire Internet. Sure if you want to be an Annie or do stock then you have to think about that but for most of us our style need not reach that far. What will help those looking to be different is this... Think up anything, I mean almost anything and be shocked to know that at least 10 people have thought the very same thing and are planning on doing it. Which means it has already been done somewhere but has not traveled to your area of influence yet. When you realize that it has all been done you lose the drive to be first and instead focus on what you want to do, whether or not it has been done, you focus on what satisfies you.

I think as photographers who thrive on praise (to the point of destroying this industry) we need to understand that it is healthy to only have a few Michael Reichmann's otherwise we turn into Hollywood itself which has more stars than they know what to do with. Those poor souls are always showing up in some magazine sitting on their couch in bare feet trying to tell us how special they are... again...

The future of digital is going to bring about a great shaking... camera's good enough will be practically free, the endless sharing of styles and tips will continue (because of praise) and everything will be known... what will separate us? Here you go... marketing... not style my friend. Your chasing the wrong rabbit...

A photographer today should find out which type of photographer he wants to be: A famous one? A true artist? A business man? The Bible teaches moderation in all things. You can be all the above if you just try to be moderate... otherwise you will go insane as most of Hollywood has.

Look at the show American Idol which is cranking out more talent than I knew existed. There is going to be lot of singers on the street corners if those hopefuls don't understand that the world can not place that many famous people. They need to stop chasing international stardom and focus on the good they can do in their area of influence.

[Rudy Torres]

Sid,

Don't worry about it. Just shoot. Let history makes its own judgement.

- Rudy

[geesbert]

lots of successful photographers who stuck to their style without evolving it got obsolete pretty soon.

[wolfnowl]

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/seth_god...iced_bread.html

Might be of interest to some...

Mike.

P.S. Also http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/malcolm_...etti_sauce.html

WARNING: TED videos can be addictive.  Watch at your own risk!

[Hywel]

Relax. You have a personal style. You may not be able to recognise it, but other people probably can. And if it is important, if your photos survive posterity, other people will identify what the components of your style are (or were!)

Style is all the things you don't realise you are doing. If you worry that you haven't got a distinctively personal style of lighting, you've probably got a distinctive style of composing your shots, or always tend to pull photos in the same direction when you post process. You don't even realise you are doing it... and sometimes you will almost certainly do things differently anyway. For example, my personal style probably involves lots of saturated deep primary colours because that's how I imagine images, how I shoot them, and how my natural tendency is always to process them. But... sometimes I shoot black and white.    

  Hywel.

[cyberean]

some have style ...
while others are just stylin'  

[Rob C]

lots of successful photographers who stuck to their style without evolving it got obsolete pretty soon.

I have a feeling that any photographer who gets more than ten really good years out of the business is doing something pretty remarkable. The suspicion is that after that we all become old hat, regardless of whether we still manage to find work or not. Maybe the solution is migration into another area that's related.

Rob C

[pcunite]

I have a feeling that any photographer who gets more than ten really good years out of the business is doing something pretty remarkable. The suspicion is that after that we all become old hat, regardless of whether we still manage to find work or not. Maybe the solution is migration into another area that's related.

Yes and this hyper use and abuse of humans is coming from Hollywood itself who burns through people in their twenties/thirties like there is no tomorrow. You can ride that train but just know your going to get thrown from it...

[Frank Doorhof]

I always try to be as versatile as possible, sometimes posting over-processed and almost airbrushed photos and sometimes straight out of the cam or black and white or even film shots.

Still people will say they immediately recognize a shot that I made, I wonder how and why even when I try to jump from style to style.
Maybe it's something people come to expect from you.
I've been teaching workshops for some years now aimed at light and understanding how to use it, the funny thing is that even with my lightsetups the students will not make shots that are looking like mine and visa versa.

I teach in one of the advanced workshops that it's like a painter, you can see by the strokes he/she uses that it's his/hers painting.
With photography we don't use a brush of course but we choose our angles, we choose the way the shadows interact and most of all we choose our compositions, that all combined with the way our models look into or just over the camera, our own viewing point, topped off with our personal mix of photoshop will give you a signature style, no matter what camera you shoot with.

That's why you will hear a lot of seasoned pros say that cameras are "horses for courses" and they will switch between DSLRs and MF without the viewer ever noticing that a different system was used.

So in my opinion to make a long story short.
PERSONAL style in photography is your fingerprint and you will leave this on all your work because it's the way YOU see the world.
When publicizing enough work people will start to recognize this.

You can of course always add something to your shots that will set you apart when we look at the old painters I love Rembrandt but also Caravaggio.
When you compare those some will say that both are very photogenic but when still I can often see which painting is of which painter, look at the very strong reds in Caravaggio's paintings and the more subdued tonings in Rembrands also you can see a different kind of "sharpness" "realness" in the paintings.
Still for the casual viewer both could look almost similar.....
I don't think Caravaggio has intentionally added some reds to most of his paintings, but it just happens (subconscious ?) and that's what sets him apart for me to all other painters.
Us photographers will also add probably subconscious something to our shots that make it our style without ever thinking about it.
And that's what sets one photographer apart from the other with the same subject, light and camera.

Sorry for the long story.

[stamper]

Bernard,

That's nice! Can you post a test?!


Joke aside, it's probably best to have a style that differentiates from the competition but does not alienate costumers.

Best regards
Erik

How can you have a style that differentiates from the competition? You would have to look at all of them - impossible? - and deliberately find something unique? Millions of photographers and only a limited amount of styles. It isn't like going into a fashion shop and asking the garment maker to create something for you that nobody else wears? No matter what you do will alienate customers. David Bailey cut off the top of heads of portraits and was copied and vilified in equal measure? If you do come up with something different and it works it will be copied instantly and how do you know it hasn't been done decades ago by several people? I think  the style thing is a bit of an ego boosting exercise to please the person taking the images?