Cody White
Member
Or what drives your style of photography?
I know I'm still looking for my style.
I know I'm still looking for my style.
-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
What's your motivation?
- Thread starter Cody White
- Start date
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Cody,
I find that question to be quite hard to answer and then perhaps not as important a question is one might assume.
In simple terms, my style is driven by the extent to which there's a necessity to deliver an image that has a particular purpose, Then it's just limited my my own imagination and talent. I hope my work is still original. Likely, mostly, it's not! That's because we are so influenced by torrents of imagery.
Now I'd suggest that the more important idea to consider is what "Is it worthwhile for me as a person, for my values and sensitivities, to invest my time in." So instead of thinking "What style should I have?", or "How do I get my style?", (akin to trying to find one's lost heraldic shield! LOL), I'd ask "What do I want to experience and what things will bring that about?" So if patterns in bird flight interests you, work on that until you know that better than anyone and find the essences of that to photograph.
If one can identify some theme which really interests one's mind and if one decides to photograph a series of images based on this, then to make the individual images work together in a family, there will naturally evolve a commonality in the choices made that is the style! So I'd suggest that one focus on thematics, define a body of thought to explore and then as one struggles to find a practical means for expression of these ideas in pictures, that style will simply evolve without artificially "creating" it. I think that style might be usefully viewed as a description of the way you did what you did. If you try to express your ideas for photography in the most clear fashion, you will, at the end of the day, have defined your style.
Asher
I find that question to be quite hard to answer and then perhaps not as important a question is one might assume.
In simple terms, my style is driven by the extent to which there's a necessity to deliver an image that has a particular purpose, Then it's just limited my my own imagination and talent. I hope my work is still original. Likely, mostly, it's not! That's because we are so influenced by torrents of imagery.
Now I'd suggest that the more important idea to consider is what "Is it worthwhile for me as a person, for my values and sensitivities, to invest my time in." So instead of thinking "What style should I have?", or "How do I get my style?", (akin to trying to find one's lost heraldic shield! LOL), I'd ask "What do I want to experience and what things will bring that about?" So if patterns in bird flight interests you, work on that until you know that better than anyone and find the essences of that to photograph.
If one can identify some theme which really interests one's mind and if one decides to photograph a series of images based on this, then to make the individual images work together in a family, there will naturally evolve a commonality in the choices made that is the style! So I'd suggest that one focus on thematics, define a body of thought to explore and then as one struggles to find a practical means for expression of these ideas in pictures, that style will simply evolve without artificially "creating" it. I think that style might be usefully viewed as a description of the way you did what you did. If you try to express your ideas for photography in the most clear fashion, you will, at the end of the day, have defined your style.
Asher
Rachel Foster
New member
I suspect it may be dangerous to try to find one's "style." Rather than let the artist's eye drive the work, the artist may find him/herself contorting the work to conform to a style. This probably would not be conscious.
Maybe one could create a new "style?"
Maybe one could create a new "style?"
John Angulat
pro member
Don't worry about finding your syle. Shoot, have fun doing so and eventually you'll find a "style" that you're most comfortable with.
But, I think you'll be surprised to find that "style" will change over time.
What pleases you today may leave you disinterested at a later date.
Ken Tanaka, when offering critique usually gives us at least one (or more) references to photographers in an attempt to teach us to "see".
I always follow his leads. And what I've seen from many of the books I've purchased is this: even the best of the best have dramatically changed their styles over their lifetimes.
So, don't chase something that's not meant to be caught, rather...go with the flow.
Rachel Foster
New member
Heraclitus: No [one] steps in the same river twice.
C. Fessler
New member
Don't try and "find" your style, let it come naturally...that's when it will work the best!
Mark Hampton
New member
these images motivate me
http://www.nature.com/news/specials/hubble/slideshow.html
as for style - flat pictures are where its at
http://www.nature.com/news/specials/hubble/slideshow.html
as for style - flat pictures are where its at
Sandrine Bascouert
Member
There are things I'm comfortable with (post prod, work in the dark, be alone when I shoot, looking at everything -most of the time in the sky or on the ground- the beauty of nature.)There are other things I'm not comfortable with (shooting people, struggling with time, not having to the to look around before I shoot) etc...
So I know that I'll never do documentary photos, I'll never do sports photos, I'll never do portraits or I'll never be a paparazzi. That's my style, I'm taking pictures of nature and I make a lot of post production with photoshop, whenever I can, I spend a lot of time walking in the streets, or in the forests and taking no pictures and come again the next day, to shoot what I've been thinking of the day before. That's my style and it's against my will. I've never say that it's unique, as you'll never know what other people do in their spare time. You can only know if they advertise it. I'll never say that's good, but it's what comes naturally in the viewfinder.
So I know that I'll never do documentary photos, I'll never do sports photos, I'll never do portraits or I'll never be a paparazzi. That's my style, I'm taking pictures of nature and I make a lot of post production with photoshop, whenever I can, I spend a lot of time walking in the streets, or in the forests and taking no pictures and come again the next day, to shoot what I've been thinking of the day before. That's my style and it's against my will. I've never say that it's unique, as you'll never know what other people do in their spare time. You can only know if they advertise it. I'll never say that's good, but it's what comes naturally in the viewfinder.
Daniel Buck
New member
relaxation and enjoyment (and getting away from people & buildings!). i shoot the things that I enjoy, and the things that help me relax. Landscapes, trees, and vehicles mostly. I love landscapes and trees, and I love driving and working on vehicles.
Rachel Foster
New member
Sandrine...bravo! You articulated that beautifully.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Sandrine,
This is the reply I'd expect from Jim Galli here or here, Ben Rubenstein or Jim Collum and relates why each has invested so much time in large format photography. It seems that this type of photography is also about finding ones place in the universe as much as photographing the quiet things of life.
The paradox for me is that I'm not too happy with myself under these pressures either! It stirs up one's tranquility and that takes time then to have recovery. For that's days of self-reproach. Still, I do it and am thrilled to have the good result. It's as if contemplative photography is the stalking hunter just planning all the time and then the food is discovered, not killed. By contrast people photography is the actual fight for the command of the subject as if wrestling with angels or purse snatching, grabbing that moment of vulnerability.
Asher
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
these images motivate me
http://www.nature.com/news/specials/hubble/slideshow.html
as for style - flat pictures are where its at
The universe as shown by Hubble is hardly flat, LOL! What flat pictures have inspired you the most? Perhaps by "flat" you mean not various projections of stitched images into a 3D space?
Asher
Rachel Foster
New member
"That's my style and it's against my will."
That was the most important point made in this thread.
That was the most important point made in this thread.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
""Against" my will" ? Ça veut dire quoi, exactement? ?
That wording perplexed me and I was planning to ask what it meant!
So you understand what that means in the context used by a native French speaker? I was thinking perhaps that the English word "Against" might mean, as used here:
So, Rachel,
Which, if any, of the plausible meanings listed here were you valuing to be "the most important points made?" To take pictures that are directed by one's will, [not the electronics of the camera or paths of tourist buses], would seem the best way to venture into artistic photography. The photography of almost all the people we admire is most often defined by their technique and approach being governed by their purpose and not by happenstance.
Asher
Sanderine said:
That wording perplexed me and I was planning to ask what it meant!
So you understand what that means in the context used by a native French speaker? I was thinking perhaps that the English word "Against" might mean, as used here:
- is line with or
- solidarity with but not
- opposed to "Contrary to".
So, Rachel,
Which, if any, of the plausible meanings listed here were you valuing to be "the most important points made?" To take pictures that are directed by one's will, [not the electronics of the camera or paths of tourist buses], would seem the best way to venture into artistic photography. The photography of almost all the people we admire is most often defined by their technique and approach being governed by their purpose and not by happenstance.
Asher
Rachel Foster
New member
I may not have understood what Sandrine meant to say, but the words resonated with me. It seems that what I shoot has a certain quality to it whether I want it to or not. I've concluded that what I do will always have that quality to it unless I adopt a "xerox machine approach" (consciously attempting top copy the work of others).
A photographer friend has characterized my photos as having having a "lonely beauty" to them. Some people agree with that, others perhaps not. However, the characterization has always been an uncomfortable one for me. But...the point is that whatever words are used to describe my photos, they do have a quality (however one would describe it) that I don't consciously seek to imbue them with and that I doubt I can eliminate however hard I try.
A photographer friend has characterized my photos as having having a "lonely beauty" to them. Some people agree with that, others perhaps not. However, the characterization has always been an uncomfortable one for me. But...the point is that whatever words are used to describe my photos, they do have a quality (however one would describe it) that I don't consciously seek to imbue them with and that I doubt I can eliminate however hard I try.
Sandrine Bascouert
Member
I cannot help not doing it...?
beyond my control?
I have to force myself doing something else...
not sure really, Iget use to english now, i's getting more complicated to translate things in French...
But in that case it's the litteral translation of the French words "contre ma volonté" it means that I have no free will on this. The censor is my mind. I cannot bother people that I do not know but taking photograph of them , worse without tell them. i recall this people who are shooting beggars and homeless guys in the street with a tele lens, not touching the misery. I'm no fool, if you offer me liberal amount of money I'll do it. But I still be disgusted. I could not convince myself that's right, It's against my will.
beyond my control?
I have to force myself doing something else...
not sure really, Iget use to english now, i's getting more complicated to translate things in French...
But in that case it's the litteral translation of the French words "contre ma volonté" it means that I have no free will on this. The censor is my mind. I cannot bother people that I do not know but taking photograph of them , worse without tell them. i recall this people who are shooting beggars and homeless guys in the street with a tele lens, not touching the misery. I'm no fool, if you offer me liberal amount of money I'll do it. But I still be disgusted. I could not convince myself that's right, It's against my will.
Ken Tanaka
pro member
I'm always amused when some nonsensical, tersely worded, seemingly harmless question like this precipitates pages of navel-gazing. It's so typical of photo forums!
The best response I've ever seen to this question came from a short video by the renowned photographer William Klein.
(WARNING: Some of his language might not be appropriate for adults.)
Ruben Alfu
New member
Thanks for sharing this Ken.
"F.I. I'll blow it up in the darkroom" William Klein
This phrase reminded me Julio Cortazar and his short story "Las babas del diablo", known in english as "Blow up" because of the movie it inspired in the 60's. The main character in this story is a street photographer who finds out he is in danger after blowing up a photo.
What does it has to do with this thread? Short stories are my favorite form of literature, and they are certainly an amazing source of inspiration. Cortazar happened to be a photographer himself, here's a fascinating article that goes deep into his thoughts about photography and its similarities to short stories. I find this inspiring and revealing:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2342/is_n3_v27/ai_15473849/
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Ken,
Julius Caeser was critiqued in Act I Scene 2 of the play by William Shakespeare
"Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves."
He has accomplished so much that he no longer saw issues at the lowest level.
Ken, allow me this consideration of your own standing. Your dedication to art and imagery has earned you a broad and deep understanding of trends and the layout of photography within the art world of museums, collections and books. Your own work is published and presented well. You are in a position to both make pictures that might outlast you and also give good advice to those still learning the landmarks and pathways that might be explored. It's possible, perhaps, that you might be forgetting that just the idea of "style",( for the inexperienced), appears and looms as a necessary but terrifying choice like "the make of camera" which pretends to be some giant complex hurdle to overcome. To you, having gotten a clear idea of the art landscape in the development of art, especially Western art and the values and movements in photography, take as a given the continuous formations and new relationships that have developed in your own work, your stye. However, that same concept is not an easy yoke for a newbie and even an enthusiast to bear.
So that's perhaps why we have such long debates in online fora. We might worry about mortality. Most are simply trying to be born!
Asher
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Ken,
Having addressed that, not-unexpected rap on the knuckles, let's go to your link to William Klein's, Out of Necessity!
Once again, your harsh humor is more than balanced by your sharing of an experience to be valued for a long time. William Klein's story here is new to me and inspirational. Thanks so much!
Asher
Sandrine Bascouert
Member
I'm not photography historian, but as for the make of the camera there's something weird I wanted to say. In fact not exactly the make; I read somewhere that Adams loved the large format (made of wood?) that's heavy to carry with its tripod, and you have to go far away, walking, and it makes you go slow, and lets you think. Do you think it would have been the same thing with my TZ4? I used to own a nikon FA, and an olympus OM1 (a cheap one, beautiful...) and I loved to shoot with these better than with my F801s, because mainly of the noise, it was so soft, and you didn't even disturb birds with these. The FA was heavy, fill naturally my hand, was as natural as fork or a spoon as I eat (I'm not even talking about the 85 mm that went with it). I doesn't happen anymore now, I feel clumsy with this little stuff in my hand, having to stretch my hands to find the LCD screen. I make different photos with the lumix, as I made different photos with the F801S and different again with the G5. Remember that I'm not a professional photographer, I shoot for my pleasure only. just my point...
Rachel Foster
New member
One of the things I've always liked about Ken is that he does not play verbal games. He says what he thinks. This can be disconcerting, but his bluntness is more than compensated for by his knowledge and talent. He often rips to shreds images posted on OPF, but I have yet to see criticism that was not informed by knowledge and driven by the intent to help the photographer. That said, I think Asher very correctly observed that Ken has forgotten what it's like for those of us still struggling with the basics.
So, what if Ken hurts our feelings? We should deal with it, listen to what he (and others here who are extremely knowledgeable and talented) has/have to say. Want praise? Show your friends, your family, or post on Flickr. Want to learn? Listen, consider, and keep shooting.
Anyone who wants to is welcome to critique my work or my questions at whatever level they choose. And, although I may not agree with the criticisms, I'm always grateful for them. One point: I consider and often attempt every suggestion made...but I don't post the results unless I can make them work.
So, what if Ken hurts our feelings? We should deal with it, listen to what he (and others here who are extremely knowledgeable and talented) has/have to say. Want praise? Show your friends, your family, or post on Flickr. Want to learn? Listen, consider, and keep shooting.
Anyone who wants to is welcome to critique my work or my questions at whatever level they choose. And, although I may not agree with the criticisms, I'm always grateful for them. One point: I consider and often attempt every suggestion made...but I don't post the results unless I can make them work.
Sandrine Bascouert
Member
I don't take it for myself (as every beginner, I often think that everybody is against me)
But anyway, nobody can hurt my feelings anymore, I started to play poker. It cures my shyness very well.
And one should always accept any criticism from someone more talented than oneself, you can take it and throw it away once it has served well (a bit like your favorite handkerchief) but you still have to take it, and be kind yourself.
I once had a very kind advice from Georges Fevre (that's the point in the post where I want you to know that I knew someone famous - end of the point). And he said to me: The "better" is the enemy of the "good"- with an air of "take that and go away". It was in 1993 and I'm still puzzled...
But anyway, nobody can hurt my feelings anymore, I started to play poker. It cures my shyness very well.
And one should always accept any criticism from someone more talented than oneself, you can take it and throw it away once it has served well (a bit like your favorite handkerchief) but you still have to take it, and be kind yourself.
I once had a very kind advice from Georges Fevre (that's the point in the post where I want you to know that I knew someone famous - end of the point). And he said to me: The "better" is the enemy of the "good"- with an air of "take that and go away". It was in 1993 and I'm still puzzled...
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Hi, Sandrine,
As to "the 'better' being the enemy of the 'good' " (a favorite saying of plastic surgeons in the US, by the way - sometimes said, "the 'perfect' is the enemy of the 'good'"), to me that says "beyond a certain point, your efforts to improve a certain result may be counterproductive". It's good advice when you are making a pie crust. The dough will only tolerate so much "working".
In other cases, it may just be just a practitioner's admission that he has "run out of steam"!
In any case, we can perhaps get some insight into the meaning of the phrase by recasting it this way: "The 'better' is the enemy of the 'good enough' ".
I certainly like your comment that we need to take in all criticism, make what we can of it that is useful, and then toss it away. Everything our colleagues say means something - the trick is to figure out what it is. Sometimes it is just declaration of outlook - I describe it as the writer reporting in for calibration.
Best regards,
Doug
All well said and, belatedly from me, thank you for joining us.
As to "the 'better' being the enemy of the 'good' " (a favorite saying of plastic surgeons in the US, by the way - sometimes said, "the 'perfect' is the enemy of the 'good'"), to me that says "beyond a certain point, your efforts to improve a certain result may be counterproductive". It's good advice when you are making a pie crust. The dough will only tolerate so much "working".
In other cases, it may just be just a practitioner's admission that he has "run out of steam"!
In any case, we can perhaps get some insight into the meaning of the phrase by recasting it this way: "The 'better' is the enemy of the 'good enough' ".
I certainly like your comment that we need to take in all criticism, make what we can of it that is useful, and then toss it away. Everything our colleagues say means something - the trick is to figure out what it is. Sometimes it is just declaration of outlook - I describe it as the writer reporting in for calibration.
Best regards,
Doug
Sandrine Bascouert
Member
My BW printouts were far from "perfect", that's what was puzzling me. His were more than perfect...
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Sandrine,
For someone with French as you mother tongue, your English is outstanding. For an Englishman it would likely speak of Oxford or Cambridge as a background for the quality of the thought. I developed a motto, Good enough, isn't!" a long time ago. It really has value when folk try to cut corners and provide what can pass for a job well done but the flaws are there, weakening it.
Two of us, working separately on a leukemia virus isolated a new strain we though would be a great candidate for a vaccine and the prize of the century. It turned out that my view, of 60 minutes inactivation of one ingredient in the cell cultures was replaced by 20 minutes as everyone thought it was, "good enough!" That difference allowed a contaminant virus to grow and we wasted over 6 months of research and a huge amount of precious funding.
A balcony in Texas collapsed as the specs had been made for about 10 people. Well the bolts cost about $0.50 each and a dozen more and the tragedy of scores of deaths would have been avoided.
For art in photography, it applies too. Is this your best? Have we applied ourselves to get our ideas into the physical form that will come alive or are we just churning out what's fashionable or what we can get away with. Of course, that means that we exclude from this discussion production work for headshots and catalogs from this as we'd have to raise prices or starve. Here the work should meet or exceed the clients expectations and the price paid. That's why many successful photographers send their work to pro labs to be printed. Otherwise they would have no time for eating, family or new work.
Perfection is more complex. In art, the experience can be perfect but the ballet have errors or the Mozart piano concerto was interrupted by the collapse of a patron or one cough. Here the performances
provided the trigger to transport us to a Nirvana universe and so that was perfection, indeed. However, in making the art, some folk do not have an ability to recognize when the work is finished. Obsessed and driven, they continue to rearrange elements. In doing so, eventually they risk invading integrity in a quest for perfection. Art cannot always be made "perfectly" as the mind has changed during the process so what standards or design it might meet changes too. The danger is that the creator can kill his/her work by never allowing it to breathe. So perfection might be even an enemy of art!
Cody,
Back to the idea of style. If one works to appreciate the world, art around us and has put effort into understanding form and light, then a path towards expressive work might be opened. If one then looks to see what one likes and works on projects trying to express concepts or feelings, then gradually a style might emerge.
Now if you wish you can choose a photographic style of someone you admire. However, after learning to mimic it, explore how you really would like to do things, your own way, even within that set of affected esthetics. It's not sufficient to grab someone else's way of doing things. Where is one's own values and preferences? So we have to work on this. Why? Because, "Good enough, isn't!"
Asher
Last edited:
Mike Shimwell
New member
Just a quick thought on perfection - there are a number of ways to use the word. Our daner is that we seek perfection meaning without fault, but sometimes should seek something that is perfectly suited to the task at hand - i.e. is adequate to get the job done with out letting you down. A diamond doesn't shine without it's flaw(s).
Not to suggest carelessness, but a care, as Asher said, not to kill what you see.
Mike
Not to suggest carelessness, but a care, as Asher said, not to kill what you see.
Mike
Sandrine Bascouert
Member
I am of the kind that think photography is not really art. I know it sounds stupid, but to me it's more like craftsmanship. There's is a minimum of technical achievement that one must reach making a print out, the perfection is elsewhere.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Nor is painting art, unless, by design or chance, it is!
That applies to photography too.
Asher
Sandrine Bascouert
Member
I wonder now if it's really what I meant to say...
I going to tell a story about my early years in photography...
Straight after my graduation I worked as an intern in a photo shop, I used to make a lot of developments and enlargements mostly in B&W, The boss was a jerk-off, completely hopeless. I had a colleague, a talented printer. The boss was the only one allowed to enter the studio, where he made the portraits (we, poor things, weren't good enough for "art"). The negs he used to give to us, were horrible, always underexposed for fair complexion and overexposed for black subjects. At the beginning, I decided to say nothing, I was struggling with the printouts, while my friend sorted them out in minutes. Usually pre-lighting the paper to lower the contrast, making inter negatives and so on...
She was working in a real craftsmanship spirit, giving back brilliant paper from shitty negs. Once I dared ask why wasn't it possible to obtain a decent work from that man. She said to me:" I'll show you something". She stole the keys from the boss' jacket while he was away (naughty!) and we entered the studio. She shew me an Hasselblad on a tripod, and the tripod screwed on the ground (Because he was afraid the cleaning lady would move it from its position) and we saw no light meter, no device at all. I was terrified. She said: "He is not able to take a picture, he has no meter because he says that he can do without, but in fact he doesn't even know how to use one. He is the elder son of a wealthy man who made a business in photo shop franchises. he has no skills"
But the printouts he gave back to the customers were brilliants and he was renowned as a great photographer in the area. People used to say he was an "artist". But only I, knew who the artist was. This was real Craftsmanship, the pleasure to give back pieces of art, with the humility of a cabinet maker. In addition, she was really badly paid (and for myself, I was not paid at all, because I was in internship).
Long story, uh?
I going to tell a story about my early years in photography...
Straight after my graduation I worked as an intern in a photo shop, I used to make a lot of developments and enlargements mostly in B&W, The boss was a jerk-off, completely hopeless. I had a colleague, a talented printer. The boss was the only one allowed to enter the studio, where he made the portraits (we, poor things, weren't good enough for "art"). The negs he used to give to us, were horrible, always underexposed for fair complexion and overexposed for black subjects. At the beginning, I decided to say nothing, I was struggling with the printouts, while my friend sorted them out in minutes. Usually pre-lighting the paper to lower the contrast, making inter negatives and so on...
She was working in a real craftsmanship spirit, giving back brilliant paper from shitty negs. Once I dared ask why wasn't it possible to obtain a decent work from that man. She said to me:" I'll show you something". She stole the keys from the boss' jacket while he was away (naughty!) and we entered the studio. She shew me an Hasselblad on a tripod, and the tripod screwed on the ground (Because he was afraid the cleaning lady would move it from its position) and we saw no light meter, no device at all. I was terrified. She said: "He is not able to take a picture, he has no meter because he says that he can do without, but in fact he doesn't even know how to use one. He is the elder son of a wealthy man who made a business in photo shop franchises. he has no skills"
But the printouts he gave back to the customers were brilliants and he was renowned as a great photographer in the area. People used to say he was an "artist". But only I, knew who the artist was. This was real Craftsmanship, the pleasure to give back pieces of art, with the humility of a cabinet maker. In addition, she was really badly paid (and for myself, I was not paid at all, because I was in internship).
Long story, uh?