Do you have a "photographic style"?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

My guess is that you've seen an awful lot of photos.

I play this game while watching TV with my daughter: very often I am able to guess the next line in a dialog. Because they tend to be cliche and highly predictable. Just like your comment above. I was about to post how Isaac will respond exactly like you did, but you beat me to it. I am expecting better from you, Isaac, by now

[RSL]

Presented with five prints, one each from Cartier-Bresson, Arbus, Friedlander, Gilden, and Winogrand, I'm fairly confident I could identify them all.

How much would you be willing to bet on that, Elliot? I think you're overestimating your perception.

[jjj]

Hi Slobodan. Yes and no. If you're talking about, say, Ulesmann's darkroom contortions I'd hesitate to call it a style. Instead I'd call it a genre. Outside of somebody making quickly recognizable distortions I don't see how anybody can look at a photography and say, for instance, "That's a Cartier-Bresson. I've never seen it before but I'm sure it's a Cartier-Bresson." I've been studying Henri's work since the middle 1950's and I can't do that. If the picture were of a dog doing something funny I'd suspect that it's by Elliott Erwitt, but it would only be a suspicion. Other people do funny dogs.

Maybe the problem is that you are looking at photographers who are not creatively distinctive enough. Other photographers like David LaChapelle or Gregory Crewsdon are far more distinct in their styles, but as the photographers you tend to prefer are the ones who are more anonymous in their style, you cannot distinguish them so easily. Uelsman's work is also quite distinctive to me.

Renoir created a recognizable style. Other people can mimic Renoir's style, but it's still Renoir's style -- something his hand produced naturally. There's nothing similar in photography.

Utter nonsense.

But, as I said earlier, part of the problem is semantics. When you and I say "style" we may not be talking about the same thing, and I don't see anything in my dictionaries that really helps pin it down.

And other people copy the styles of the two photographers I just mentioned.

[jjj]

But there are others. For instance, when I see a close up portrait of a baby or kid crying, coupled with a distinctive post-processing, I can certainly recognize it as belonging to a certain photographer (who's name escapes me at the moment). Helmut Newton fashion images are rather recognizable too. Mapplethorpe's male nudes. Salgado's refugees.

I know exactly who you mean by that description, which certainly indicates a distinctive style. But annoying I cannot recall her name either, something like Sally Greenfield and I was also going to mention the others too as they are as distinctive as some painters.

[jjj]

I know exactly who you mean by that description, which certainly indicates a distinctive style.

Eventually managed to get the right name by searching for her style instead and interestingly enough one of the first links is how to copy her style...Baby photo retouching tutorial| On Jill Greenberg style

Then there's loads of tutorials on copying the Dave Hill style too....

[elliot_n]

How much would you be willing to bet on that, Elliot? I think you're overestimating your perception.

Not a lot. But then I get Picasso and Braque mixed up. I don't buy the idea that painting is inherently more stylish than photography.

[jjj]

Not a lot. But then I get Picasso and Braque mixed up. I don't buy the idea that painting is inherently more stylish than photography.

It isn't but the difference is that there is a huge barrier to being called a painter as you need to have skill to even do it in first place. Whereas with photography, it takes zero skill to take simply take a photograph. Therefore the photographers who do have style and talent are hidden amongst the billions of uninteresting and banal pictures without any style.

[Tony Jay]

It isn't but the difference is that there is a huge barrier to being called a painter as you need to have skill to even do it in first place. Whereas with photography, it takes zero skill to take simply take a photograph. Therefore the photographers who do have style and talent are hidden amongst the billions of uninteresting and banal pictures without any style.

There are also plenty (billions) of rubbish paintings out there too from over the ages....

Tony Jay

[jjj]

There are also plenty (billions) of rubbish paintings out there too from over the ages....

In one sense true, but compared to the number of photographs being taken every day it's almost insignificant.

[Tony Jay]

In one sense true, but compared to the number of photographs being taken every day it's almost insignificant.

Nonetheless the cream will always float to the top...

Tony Jay

[ognita]

It is one of those questions more serious photographers ask during workshops. First time I was asked, consistency came to mind, and the only way to do that is to be true to yourself from subject matter to aesthetics. I think I can spot a Sugimoto and Rothko, or maybe I am just familiar with their work. A body of work would be a better gauge. One cannot see by a single act alone (single image) but through time.

Maybe a style is like a personality. True that many of us almost have the same but there's certainly or maybe something unique about us.

[jjj]

Nonetheless the cream will always float to the top...

But it's really hard to see the cream when it's only 0.01%. 

[amolitor]

Nonetheless the cream will always float to the top...

Tony Jay

With respect, this is absolutely not true. Some of the best known photographers working today are quite awful. Possibly if you are very very careful in just which "top" you're referring to, you might be right, but I doubt it even then.

[jjj]

It is one of those questions more serious photographers ask during workshops. First time I was asked, consistency came to mind, and the only way to do that is to be true to yourself from subject matter to aesthetics. I think I can spot a Sugimoto and Rothko, or maybe I am just familiar with their work. A body of work would be a better gauge. One cannot see by a single act alone (single image) but through time.

That applies to any body of art. Music in particular as everyone has heard the ignorant person claim that 'All so and so music sounds the same', when those who like it obviously can distinguish finely between songs/artists.
People only tend to see similarities of things they are unfamiliar with, but once knowledgeable, then they see the differences and can easily identify specific artists.

Maybe a style is like a personality. True that many of us almost have the same but there's certainly or maybe something unique about us.

It's almost exactly like a personality. Possibly the best way of describing style yet.

[jjj]

With respect, this is absolutely not true. Some of the best known photographers working today are quite awful. Possibly if you are very very careful in just which "top" you're referring to, you might be right, but I doubt it even then.

You not liking someone does not make them awful. They are simply not to your taste. No more no less.

[RSL]

. . .I think I can spot a Sugimoto and Rothko, or maybe I am just familiar with their work. A body of work would be a better gauge. One cannot see by a single act alone (single image) but through time.

Jeremy's BS aside, Red, I think you hit the nail on the head. You have a better chance of spotting any artist's work if you're familiar with the body of his work. In Rothko's case you're talking about a painter, so it's at least remotely possible you'd be able to spot an individual example of his work, though there's more than one painter who spreads flat splotches of color on canvas. In the case of Sugimoto I'm not so sure. Anybody with a camera can go out and shoot a picture of the quiet ocean, placing the horizon exactly in the middle of the frame.

[Tony Jay]

With respect, this is absolutely not true. Some of the best known photographers working today are quite awful. Possibly if you are very very careful in just which "top" you're referring to, you might be right, but I doubt it even then.

Although it is a matter of personal taste "good" photography, as with other art forms, is distinguishable.
The fact that there is a lot of photography to choose from does not change that.
In addition there is difference between a commercially successful image and an artistically successful image even if to some people that is merely a semantic distinction.

In every era of art there have been fads and styles that have been popular.
The work of some artists have stood the test of time transcending temporary popularity.
Photography, as an art form, is relatively new, so lets wait and see whose work stands the test of time.
I agree that some of the work around now that seems to get a lot of attention, and money, does not necessarily do a lot for me.
Who knows whether I am correct in my assessment or whether this stuff is still sought after in decades and centuries to come.

Tony Jay

[elliot_n]

In the case of Sugimoto I'm not so sure. Anybody with a camera can go out and shoot a picture of the quiet ocean, placing the horizon exactly in the middle of the frame.

It's not much more difficult to produce a decent Renoir or Van Gogh. There are factories in China where art students are churning out Old Masters to order - and for surprisingly little cash. 

[RSL]

That's true, Red, but Renoir and van Gogh had actual styles that involved brush strokes, etc. Photographing the sea with the horizon in the center of the frame hardly can be called a style. Of course if you call that a style then anyone can replicate the style.

[AreBee]

Tony,

...the cream will always float to the top...

I agree in principle, but the statement is too simplistic - a professional photographer with good business but average photography skill will be successful, while a person with poor business but good photography skill will not.