Do you have a "photographic style"?

[Borgefjell]

Looking at my pictures I must admit that I am not aware of any own specific photographic style so far - I like some of my pictures more that others but I could't say that there is some kind of common style detectable so far. Some photographers out there definitely have it, which  raises the question: would you think that you already have developed a personal (photographic) style and if yes how would you describe it? Pictures are welcome as well!

[Chairman Bill]

My style seems to me to be one of 'not as good as I'd like'. I've been practising this style for some time now.

[Iluvmycam]

I like clear documentary photography. When I say clear, I mean focused on a subject as opposed to super sharp.

I don't like the confused street shots you see on the net of a bunch of people doing nothing and are presented as 'Hey look at all these people doing nothing I just shot on the street!' Although some critics said the same thing about my photos...so it is all in the eye of the viewer.

Now, I may freak out my photos a little with HDR. If conditions are tough for light I just make the best of it...as long as the photo is a worthy one.

3 recent projects...

(nsfw)

http://bikermardigras.tumblr.com/


(nsfw)

http://dewallenrld.tumblr.com/


(nsfw)

http://whoopwhoopartistsbook.tumblr.com/


Some of my old school film work from the 70's.

(nsfw)

http://danielteolijr.tumblr.com/

[mezzoduomo]

I like clear documentary photography. Although I may freak them out a little with HDR. If conditions are tough for light I just make the best of it...as long as the photo is worthy.

3 recent projects...

(nsfw)

http://bikermardigras.tumblr.com/


(nsfw)

http://dewallenrld.tumblr.com/


(nsfw)

http://whoopwhoopartistsbook.tumblr.com/

How did I know that you'd do this....yet again? Maybe its just me. Maybe everyone else needs to see your stuff repeatedly.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...Maybe its just me...

Nope.

[RSL]

Nope +

[stamper]

I don't think using HDR is a shooting style but a post processing style. The original poster was I think alluding to a shooting style? A style imo is something that happens to a photographer subconsciously rather than consciously unless someone has a photographic hero and decides to copy them. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I don't think using HDR is a shooting style but a post processing style. The original poster was I think alluding to a shooting style? A style imo is something that happens to a photographer subconsciously rather than consciously unless someone has a photographic hero and decides to copy them. 

What would a "shooting style" be?

The only ones that come readily to mind is that guy in New York who would jump in front of unsuspected passerby and fire a huge flash in their faces, catching their surprised and, frankly, terrorized faces. Or the studio guy who would torture little kids into crying. Or if you consistently do your street photography from your hip. Those would be "shooting styles" for me, but I doubt the OP had that in mind.

[amolitor]

Adam Marelli has a nice take on this, I think:

http://www.adammarelliphoto.com/2015/02/when-style-is-a-gimmick/

[RSL]

Adam Marelli has a nice take on this, I think:

http://www.adammarelliphoto.com/2015/02/when-style-is-a-gimmick/

Fine reference, Andrew. Marelli puts his finger on it: what we usually call style is an Andy Warhol type gimmick. But he also showed a couple of Bierstadt's mountain scenes. Did Bierstadt's approach to the mountains constitute a style or a gimmick? I'd say: neither. Many people seem to think Bierstadt's use of exaggerated linear perspective is a gimmick or a style, but if you live in the mountains long enough you come to understand that outside the fanciful native Americans paddling around in their canoes, Bierstadt was representing the mountains as they often seem under certain weather conditions.

I do think it's possible to have a "style" if you're a painter. Renoir certainly had one. Whether or not that's possible with a camera is another question. I think HCB developed a style in his early work, but broke away from it when he became a photojournalist. I think Robert Frank came closest to having a consistent style, but it wasn't really all that consistent.

[RSL]

The only ones that come readily to mind is that guy in New York who would jump in front of unsuspected passerby and fire a huge flash in their faces, catching their surprised and, frankly, terrorized faces.

That guy is Bruce Gilden, Slobodan. And, if you've read my essay "On Street Photography," you'll see that I agree with you about his ham-handed approach. But that isn't a style. It's the equivalent of standing in the street, ripping open your shirt, beating on your chest, and giving a Tarzan yell.

On the other hand, Gilden is a Magnum photographer and if you check his portfolio you'll see that he's done some pretty good work. On the other hand, as I said in that essay, knowing how Bruce does "street photography," when I discover he's still alive I'm astonished.

[amolitor]

Walker Evans had a style. At any rate, I have no trouble identifying an Evans (except when I get thrown by a student of Evans). It's some sort of "straight ahead, dead on, and yet, despite that damn it it still works, how is that?" thing that's very distinctive.

I can't tell what it is, but that's probably because I am looking at the wrong things and thinking about it the wrong way. It seems to have been very teachable.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Ok, let's see it in practical terms.

If I walk through cities, often years and thousand miles apart, and similar things grab my attention and I capture them and process them similarly, does it constitute a style?

[amolitor]

I have a somewhat idiosyncratic definition of style:

It is a set of photographic decisions made the same way across a body of work.

That's it.

A successful style gives visual connection between the pictures within the body of work. They all look, to a good degree, 'the same'.

Too much and you're just shooting the same picture over and over - boring. Too little and nobody can see the unifying elements.

And finally as Adam Marelli points out, a style by itself isn't enough. It's just a gimmick. You've got to have a point if view or an idea or something.

I like to say that you need something to "say" (an idea, a point of view) and then the style is the way you say it.

[Borgefjell]

I do not really know what a "photographic style" might be, in my opinion it could be some personal style which allows others to guess that this picture might have been taken by a specific person as some elements can be recognized - like with paintings etc.

The street shots taken by Bruce Gilden are one example - I don't like the style but it can be recognized and copied by others. For me this does not only involve the picture elements but also the post processing - over the last couple of years landscape-pictures from the US (I live in Europe) tended to be much more saturated and had more contrast compared to the pictures from Europe, this could be regarded as a global picture style from my point of view.

[Gulag]

"Style is the answer to everything.
A fresh way to approach a dull or dangerous thing.
To do a dull thing with style is preferable to doing a dangerous thing without style.
To do a dangerous thing with style, is what I call art.
Bullfighting can be an art.
Boxing can be an art.
Loving can be an art.
Opening a can of sardines can be an art.
Not many have style.
Not many can keep style.
I have seen dogs with more style than men.
Although not many dogs have style.
Cats have it with abundance.

When Hemingway put his brains to the wall with a shotgun, that was style.
For sometimes people give you style.
Joan of Arc had style.
John the Baptist.
Jesus.
Socrates.
Caesar.
García Lorca.
I have met men in jail with style.
I have met more men in jail with style than men out of jail.
Style is a difference, a way of doing, a way of being done.
Six herons standing quietly in a pool of water, or you, walking
out of the bathroom without seeing me."

- Charles Bukowski, Style

[jjj]

Ok, let's see it in practical terms.

If I walk through cities, often years and thousand miles apart, and similar things grab my attention and I capture them and processed them similarly, does it constitute a style?

Yes.

[jjj]

That guy is Bruce Gilden, Slobodan. And, if you've read my essay "On Street Photography," you'll see that I agree with you about his ham-handed approach. But that isn't a style. It's the equivalent of standing in the street, ripping open your shirt, beating on your chest, and giving a Tarzan yell.

On the other hand, Gilden is a Magnum photographer and if you check his portfolio you'll see that he's done some pretty good work. On the other hand, as I said in that essay, knowing how Bruce does "street photography," when I discover he's still alive I'm astonished.

Just because you do not like someone's work or their attitude, does not mean there is no style. I'm not particularly a fan of Gilden's street work on the whole and really dislike his manner, but he certainly has a recognisable style

[RSL]

The idea of "a style" in photography, equivalent to a style in painting, is an absurdity on the face of it.

[Jeremy Roussak]

I do not really know what a "photographic style" might be, in my opinion it could be some personal style which allows others to guess that this picture might have been taken by a specific person as some elements can be recognized - like with paintings etc.

I think that's as good a definition as any, and it was my immediate assumption from your question. I don't agree with Russ that the concept is absurd: Nick Brandt's African photos are pretty much immediately recognisable as his, for example.

Jeremy