Do you have a "photographic style"?

[Gilgamesh]

I would suggest to you that any "style" is only such when others can tell it's your work.

Having attended some Master classes at Magnum etc etc, I can tell you it's a keystone each of the lecturers touch upon, though don't bang on about it too much as it's something that's important but difficult to define per se.

Also, if you're shooting regularly, your "style" evolves over time. Check out Martin Parr's back catalogue of books for example.

Your way of seeing things is your style, trying to produce a body of work that is consistent enough for people to see this style of photography is the real challenge and not something you yourself may be fully aware of.

[hjulenissen]

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

If photography allows the photographer to express themselves via how they operate their camera, where/when they are pointing it, how they are interacting with the scene while making the image, how they are postprocessing and printing the image, why would/could not the set of photographer choices made by a individual photographer constitute a "style" as much as a painter?

Sounds like a piano player cannot possibly have a style because she only gets to press 88 black and whites at a given time and strength, while a violinist can have a style because her strings can be manipulated in many dimensions?

-h

[jjj]

Also, if you're shooting regularly, your "style" evolves over time. Check out Martin Parr's back catalogue of books for example.

That applies to most creative people.

[RSL]

This whole less than illuminating discussion revolves around the meaning of the word, "style," and nobody's really tried to attack that bag of worms. Does the way you "point" a camera constitute a style? Well, if you want that to be your definition, then I guess you can have that as your definition. The guy to  your right will have a different definition and the guy to your left will have a different definition, and Jeremy will have another definition that probably will defy analysis.

[Some Guy]

Close friend plays a lot of online poker, maybe too much.  What she finds odd is people often recognize her from the way she plays her hand even though she uses a different name on different poker web rooms.  "If I didn't know better, I would swear you are Mary from casino room as you play just like her." Etc.

As to me, I tend to shoot with gear no one uses, like $75 each slow-burn PF-330 flashbulbs that offer wild water colors and blurs, especially with moving things.  Can't duplicate that with electronic which freezes movement so I guess it is a style of sorts.

SG

[amolitor]

People want to define style in terms of what it does, not what it is.

It should identify the artist, evolve over time. You should have to work hard and for a long time to get one.

All of which is sheer rubbish, since nobody wants to say what it IS. Mainly because if you do pin it down,  half of these mystical properties, at least, evaporate.

[jjj]

This whole less than illuminating discussion revolves around the meaning of the word, "style," and nobody's really tried to attack that bag of worms. Does the way you "point" a camera constitute a style? Well, if you want that to be your definition, then I guess you can have that as your definition. The guy to  your right will have a different definition and the guy to your left will have a different definition, and Jeremy will have another definition that probably will defy analysis.

How you achieve your style is irrelevant, plus as mentioned above style evolves and regardless of how it is defined you will continue to deny it anyway.
And give it up with the petty personal attacks Russ, they only demean you and your arguments.

[RSL]

Explain what you mean by "style," Jeremy.

[hjulenissen]

This whole less than illuminating discussion revolves around the meaning of the word, "style," and nobody's really tried to attack that bag of worms. Does the way you "point" a camera constitute a style? Well, if you want that to be your definition, then I guess you can have that as your definition. The guy to  your right will have a different definition and the guy to your left will have a different definition, and Jeremy will have another definition that probably will defy analysis.

How is "the way you point a camera" fundamentally different from "how a painter holds her brush"?

The perceived significance is highly subjective - my Aunt would perhaps not have a specific way to handle her camera that would be recognized by Art Photographers as an individual "style". Then again, she might do something that does make her stand-out from the typical photographer (in a neutrally way).

Perhaps the issue is that some like to use "style" to also mean some positive description (i.e. "good", "well thought-out", "art"), while others use the term simply to mean "those aspects of one photographers image that tends to be different from those of another photographer".

I tend to think that for a photographer using e.g. "highly visible HDR/tonemapping" or only snapping "Moose in the sunset", it can make sense to describe this trait of their photography as it separates them from many other photographers. Call it "style" or whatever you want.

-h

[amolitor]

I have defined 'style' as a set of photographic choices made the same way across multiple photos.

While not a prefect definition, it has the singular virtue of existing so that discussion can, in theory, proceed past an endless circlejerk of 'what is style, anyway, and how does one get one?'

Now we can cue the usual suspects saying 'no, that definition sucks' so they can get back to the circlejerk.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I always keep my style in a pocket of my gadget bag, along with my rocket blower and a microfiber cloth.   

[RSL]

How is "the way you point a camera" fundamentally different from "how a painter holds her brush"?

Surely you're not serious! With a brush you pick up a thick impasto or a thin glaze and make deliberate strokes and touches. Your brushstrokes are as individual as your handwriting (at least if you still can do cursive). Do you really think how you point your camera, or how you press the shutter button constitutes a "style."

Perhaps unfortunately, the word, "style" is like the word, "good." It doesn't mean a damned thing standing alone. I think Eric has it right. Best to keep your style in your pocket -- but be careful it doesn't bite you!

[Otto Phocus]

It appears that the concept of "style" is as hard to define as the concept of "art" is. 

[Isaac]

Your brushstrokes are as individual as your handwriting (at least if you still can do cursive).

Not very -- "At one point there were thought to be over 700 paintings that were attributed to Rembrandt. That number has now dropped to a little over 300."

[elliot_n]

'When you get a style, you’re sort of dead’ - Harry Callahan.

[amolitor]

How you point the camera is certainly a "photographic choice". The way you push the button isn't.

The only reason "style" doesn't mean anything is because photographers refuse to allow it to, because they insist instead on a basket of magical properties "my style" ought to have which are incompatible with reality.

Pick a definition and, lo, you will find that the word has meaning. That's kind of what a definition does. No, wait, it's exactly what a definition does.

[RSL]

How you point the camera is certainly a "photographic choice". The way you push the button isn't.

The only reason "style" doesn't mean anything is because photographers refuse to allow it to, because they insist instead on a basket of magical properties "my style" ought to have which are incompatible with reality.

Pick a definition and, lo, you will find that the word has meaning. That's kind of what a definition does. No, wait, it's exactly what a definition does.

Exactly, Andrew. Once you define it, it can be given at least some meaning.

But, bottom line, who the hell cares? A picture either knocks you down or it doesn't. The idea of a "style" in photography is an attempt to extend the significence of a photographer's successes to his failures.

[amolitor]

I think a "style" can be useful. I have become convinced that single photographs are, for a variety of reasons, pretty much dead. Where there is work to be done it is in bodies of work, collections of pictures.

In a collection, a coherent "style" becomes a mechanism, a tool, for pulling the pictures together and for emphasizing and clarifying the ideas in play.

It's closely allied to the retail/commercial photographer's choice of a distinctive toolbag of uglification tricks they use to separate themselves from the other blokes.

[AreBee]

Andrew,

I have become convinced that single photographs are, for a variety of reasons, pretty much dead.

What convinced you?

[amolitor]

Andrew,

What convinced you?

Careful study and a lot of thought over several years. You can read more of the reasoning behind it here:

http://photothunk.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-death-of-iconic-photo.html

if you like. There's some other posts about it on my blog but that's probably the closest thing to a single "nugget of thought" I've written.