Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post

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.

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.