Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,523   Posts: 1,572,307   Online: 830
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 44
  1. #31
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    It depends on what kind of business you're in. I don't think porn stars consider sex fun anymore

    That's because they're doing it wrong and they're stuck in a rut.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  2. #32
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    The original question was whether 'style' prevents us from taking certain pictures, ....
    How could style "prevent" us from taking anything. We may not particularly like certain subject matter, but prevent us... ??

    "I'm sorry I can't photograph that because my style won't allow me to take pictures of people. You see I'm a mountain photographer.""

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

  3. #33
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,500
    Images
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    How could style "prevent" us from taking anything. We may not particularly like certain subject matter, but prevent us... ??

    "I'm sorry I can't photograph that because my style won't allow me to take pictures of people. You see I'm a mountain photographer.""

    Seems kinda silly.
    Subconsciously. We don't think about it. There is an internal editing process always going on. It never stops. If something doesn't move you, you don't take a picture, right? What is style? The cumulative knowledge, intellect, experience, and values that make you up as a human. So, decisions you make, consciously or subconsciously, is linked to your style. How else could you have a style, if there wasn't an intellect there to choose for you what to photograph and what to not photograph, and how? Call it silly if you want. I don't care. I'm just trying to help answer a question.
    And would you stop pushing my buttons, please? It's getting pretty old.
    "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. #34
    eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,474
    Images
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Subconsciously. We don't think about it. There is an internal editing process always going on. It never stops. If something doesn't move you, you don't take a picture, right? What is style? The cumulative knowledge, intellect, experience, and values that make you up as a human. So, decisions you make, consciously or subconsciously, is linked to your style. How else could you have a style, if there wasn't an intellect there to choose for you what to photograph and what to not photograph, and how?
    Well said, Thomas.
    I'd also add that clinging to a self-perceived "style" is kinda silly., and can limit artistic growth.

  5. #35
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Subconsciously. We don't think about it. There is an internal editing process always going on. It never stops. If something doesn't move you, you don't take a picture, right? What is style? The cumulative knowledge, intellect, experience, and values that make you up as a human. So, decisions you make, consciously or subconsciously, is linked to your style. How else could you have a style, if there wasn't an intellect there to choose for you what to photograph and what to not photograph, and how? Call it silly if you want. I don't care. I'm just trying to help answer a question.
    And would you stop pushing my buttons, please? It's getting pretty old.
    As I said originally style is a marketing tool. Lets say I like Ansel Adams work in Yosemite. I can go and stick my tripod in his holes and copy his style and make a bunch of money. This is not necessarily an innate part of me, it's me copying someone else to make money. It doesn't reflect anything about me other than the fact that I seized upon a moneymaking scheme. So in fact it wasn't subconscious at all, I thought about it and decided to create/copy a style.

    Let say we started out in photography and something we did early on was accepted and liked and bought by people. So that is the style we decided to make money on. However between making money on this work, we photographed a bunch of other things and our style evolved but was not commercially accepted. So now what is our style. The old work you continue to do that sells or the new you that doesn't sell.

    So the word style is too inconclusive to have any real meaning here.

    That's why I say it's a marketing term that an artist only uses for marketing, but should never float around in his head when he's shooting. He'll end up in a rut.
    Last edited by blansky; 08-14-2012 at 01:40 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  6. #36
    eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,474
    Images
    218
    I don't think you two are in disagreement. You both seem to think (and I'd agree) that "style" evolves.

  7. #37
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,798
    Images
    60
    I think my "style" is more about how I see things and what resonates with me than what others would label me with.

    But that is because I'm not out there marketing my work.

    I have however had people identify my prints among many others, based only on their previous experience with my photographs.

    And I have no doubt that how I see things greatly affects my choices on what I photograph.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  8. #38
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,500
    Images
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    So the word style is too inconclusive to have any real meaning here.
    Agree with that. Style isn't a good word, but I ended up using it to try to stay within the context of the original question.

    Your notion regarding marketing tool / style, etc - I find that to be true also, but I don't have much experience with it. My own experience is such that I make art for myself. While I love sharing and discussing the work, my goal isn't really to sell it or make a name for myself. I only need to satisfy myself, and that may place me in less than common situation compared to many others, since I don't need to worry myself with what others think. I just do what I feel like I should be doing to have fun and to complete the goals that I set for myself. It's also a matter of satisfaction to be able to improve what I already do, or get into doing new things and master them.

    I think we can agree that there are two ways one can think of it, possibly more: selling work and being a commercially successful photographer, or basically focusing only on the content to satisfy noone but ourselves. I'm sure there are those who can do both at the same time, and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with trying to make money either. We all have to pay our bills.
    For me, though, I wouldn't enjoy trying to figure out what everybody else likes, in order to sell my work. That would be a burden that would deprive me of the enjoyment I get from photographing. I have tried selling work in the past, with modest success, but it wasn't enjoyable. So I stopped before I killed one of the things I'm most passionate about. I'm sure there are others just like me. I don't know your history and what role photography played in your life, blansky, but it seems like you have a good grasp on both sides of things.
    "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

  9. #39
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Agree with that. Style isn't a good word, but I ended up using it to try to stay within the context of the original question.

    Your notion regarding marketing tool / style, etc - I find that to be true also, but I don't have much experience with it. My own experience is such that I make art for myself. While I love sharing and discussing the work, my goal isn't really to sell it or make a name for myself. I only need to satisfy myself, and that may place me in less than common situation compared to many others, since I don't need to worry myself with what others think. I just do what I feel like I should be doing to have fun and to complete the goals that I set for myself. It's also a matter of satisfaction to be able to improve what I already do, or get into doing new things and master them.

    I think we can agree that there are two ways one can think of it, possibly more: selling work and being a commercially successful photographer, or basically focusing only on the content to satisfy noone but ourselves. I'm sure there are those who can do both at the same time, and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with trying to make money either. We all have to pay our bills.
    For me, though, I wouldn't enjoy trying to figure out what everybody else likes, in order to sell my work. That would be a burden that would deprive me of the enjoyment I get from photographing. I have tried selling work in the past, with modest success, but it wasn't enjoyable. So I stopped before I killed one of the things I'm most passionate about. I'm sure there are others just like me. I don't know your history and what role photography played in your life, blansky, but it seems like you have a good grasp on both sides of things.
    That's why I came to the conclusion that "style" (as often used) is a marketing term. To sell anything requires being/living/selling in the moment. The work is in front of a potential customer, it needs to be defined, it needs cachet, salesmanship and a market/sale is created.

    An artist on the other hand his "style" is as you defined it. A sum total of himself put into what he's photographing and sometimes that changes day to day, or with his moods and it's a fluid ongoing organic thing that is not defined by time. It and he are both evolving.

    As soon as he/she starts to use his press/sales pitch as a definition of himself which is an in the moment, time defined thing, he starts to be stuck as that definition, and he will stagnate.

    Selling and creating are two very different things.

    If you've ever seen an actor and director/producer doing press, selling a movie you can see this dynamic in play. The movie comes out this weekend. The director/producer has been working on it constantly for over a years and just finished wrapping it up a week ago. The actor on the other hand, shot the thing, up to a year ago. He's moved on long ago. He is no longer the same person. The director is still in the moment. The actor has evolved. (or devolved as actors tend to do, but he's no longer in the same time frame.)

    He is often sort of disengaged but trying hard to create excitement non the less.

    Bottom line, seller, director/producer is living in his present selling the movie but the artist has to revert to the past to sell it. He is selling something that he has moved on from.

    If a photographer uses his selling style as his shooting style he will be living in the past. He will be limiting himself from evolving.

    And as I said before if his selling style makes lots of money, then keep doing it but still follow his heart when he is shooting new material.
    Last edited by blansky; 08-14-2012 at 02:00 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,580
    Quote Originally Posted by FRANOL View Post
    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)?
    I don't sell my work, so maybe my answer won't make any sense.
    My "personal style" doesn't limit my photography, it defines it.

Page 4 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