Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,711   Posts: 1,548,641   Online: 1127
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44
  1. #21
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I agree with you 95%, but will add that I think having a project, or a clearly defined goal, can help people stay focused and motivated. Shooting whatever sort of happenstance comes around is fun, but for someone like me that behavior creates a massive waste of film, and a very large pile of negatives that I never know what to do with. And I do see things of interest, all the time. Sometimes a little bit of organization is a good thing.
    I don't see where projects enter into the equation one way or the other.

    The whole style silliness has nothing to do with what you shoot but how you shoot.

    And that should evolve over time.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  2. #22
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,392
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    scott

    i read the OP's question correctly.
    there is more to 'style' than photographing
    the same subjectmatter over and over again,
    or photographing something within a project.

    one can have the same 'style" whether they are photographing color nudes
    in slot canyon, run down factory buildings or doing bromoils still lives on hand coated paper
    using wet plate negatives, it isn't subject matter but something else.
    it is the way the person with the camera sees the world, and photographs it
    and presents it ... not what is being photographed. it doesn't develop
    over night with the decision for a project, but it happens over a period of time.

    the way style seems to be talked about is as if it is subject matter, or a project, but it isn't.


    i pretty much agree 100% with clive.
    John-

    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.

  3. #23
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,301
    Images
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    I don't see where projects enter into the equation one way or the other.

    The whole style silliness has nothing to do with what you shoot but how you shoot.

    And that should evolve over time.
    And I am not catching your point. What should evolve over time, and why?

    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.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  4. #24
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,392
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    438
    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.

  5. #25
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    And I am not catching your point. What should evolve over time, and why?

    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.
    I don't understand the posts here about people and their project fetish and how that defines style. A project is a project, a style is a look. You can have the same look by photographing barns as you can photographing trains, or people or mountains. Its how your work looks. Not the subject matter.

    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.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  6. #26
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,014
    Images
    6

    So true

    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    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.
    So true. But your style of photography just like anything in life, for growth, there must be constant work. There's no growth without hard work and pain. A person who is afraid of pain and hard won't grow. You can't grow as a person by always being safe and seeking contant praise.

  7. #27
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,301
    Images
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    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.
    Amazing how put in other words the light bulb moment comes. I see what you mean. To me, how I shoot is inextricably linked to what I shoot, though. So I guess I'm a chameleon
    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...
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  8. #28
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    So true. But your style of photography just like anything in life, for growth, there must be constant work. There's no growth without hard work and pain. A person who is afraid of pain and hard won't grow. You can't grow as a person by always being safe and seeking contant praise.
    Photography isn't work. It's fun.

    Saying that photography is work is like saying sex is work.

    If it is you're doing it wrong.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  9. #29
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,014
    Images
    6
    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.

  10. #30
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,301
    Images
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    I don't understand the posts here about people and their project fetish and how that defines style. A project is a project, a style is a look. You can have the same look by photographing barns as you can photographing trains, or people or mountains. Its how your work looks. Not the subject matter.

    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.
    Well, presumably one would be developing projects with the same personality traits, core values, and decisions that one would take pictures. Ones style would shine through in everything that we do.

    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.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin