The whole style silliness has nothing to do with what you shoot but how you shoot.
And that should evolve over time.
I'd disagree that you read it correctly. That's an incredibly arrogant thing to say, because the question doesn't define 'style' with any degree of precision.
For some time bothering me question whether the personal style of photography can be a limiting factor.Sometimes you don't photograph because of moral or ethical principles and that is OK.Do you sometimes not record a shot because it does not fit your style?What would you choose:a good photograph that doesn't fit your style or not to take photo (assuming that will be published)?
It alludes to marketing/selling images. In that context, being known for a 'style' is generally a good thing (see Blansky's comment), so long as you don't get so stuck in it you become "the tree guy" (or "the colored gels painting-with-light guy" or "the pink bunny rabbit somewhere in the photo guy"). Which as Blansky pointed out, is just a marketing gimmick anyway. Defined your way, it's impossible to NOT photograph in your 'style', so there was no purpose to the question. Every photo is taken in your own 'style' - I don't think you can take a photo in someone else's style. You can certainly imitate others' techniques, but you can't stop seeing with your own eyes.
I took my cue in my original answer from the comment about not taking a photo for moral or ethical reasons - i.e. the proverbial "I saw this homeless guy lying in a pool of his own vomit, and it would have been a powerful statement image about the social decline of America today, but I didn't take it because it would be exploitative". But the follow-up I read as something akin to: you're out documenting a protest march and see a really cool antique motorcycle that could make it on the cover of Biker magazine. Do you take the photo of the bike?
Ultimately the answer to that is - it's up to you. But I wouldn't put it in any kind of ethical/moral context. 'Style' doesn't have morality.
Projects are, to me at least, a way to focus my work. I try to show something that I feel is important, or convey a certain emotion. If I don't pay attention to subject matter and am selective, how do you accomplish this with a body of work? It doesn't have to be very complicated either. Example: I like to photograph things of transportation, done the old way. So, old cars, airplanes, and trains. It's fun and it describes a time where certain mechanical and engineering challenges were at a different stage. Another example: The Midwest culture and heritage around the grain industry. There was a time when this was of vital importance to a large portion of the world, supplying food in times it was needed. Etc. This project aspect of my work positively defines how I shoot, what I shoot, how I print it, and how I combine it with other photographs to make them speak as loudly as possible.
Thomas- I think some people here are saying that style isn't WHAT you photograph but rather HOW. For example, you prefer shooting hand-held, up close, with a wide-angle point of view, usually from below looking up. Shooting that way doesn't work for everything all the time. And the way you see the world at age 21 is not the way you see it at 41 or at 61, and if you're still shooting with the 21 year old perspective at 61, your photographic perspective is out of sync with your life perspective.
Your projects are merely a period of what you shoot and when you are done you move on. They don't necessarily define the style you have.
As I've said, a style is a marketing tool to sell people what they are used to. But as a photographer you evolve onto something else, even if you continue to produce some work for your style groupies.
But if a photographer or any artist continues to stick to a style/rut for the sake of sales or ego he will stagnate and be unhappy because talent has to grow or it dies.
If you are a musician and all you do is play the same songs over and over instead of evolving you become a quaint novelty and artistically wither away. You may get rich but you'll be unhappy artistically.
It is true, that as I have aged I have also changed a bit about how I print, tonality wise. Someone mentioned Ansel Adams in this regard, and I have read that too, that he changed how he printed over the years, at one point bemoaning how dark his prints were once...
It depends on what kind of business you're in. I don't think porn stars consider sex fun anymore ;)
I don't mean photography should be drudgery, but you must constantly put effort in perfecting your art.
Agree wholeheartedly that we have to get outside of our comfort zone, realm of normalcy, and push boundaries in order to not stagnate. Absolutely. The original question was whether 'style' prevents us from taking certain pictures, and I guess in the context of applying our personality and values to what we do, our intellect would choose for us what to take pictures of. So in essence we are always editing, consciously or not.