Discrepencies in Style or PP

[rexbobcat]

I'm just curious how y'all feel about inconsistencies in photograph style and PP in a person's portfolio.
And I'm not just talking about a professional portfolio. I also mean a personal portfolio of a hobbyist or w/e

Like, everyone knows that a photo of a flower on here is Mishele's by the artistic style of the photograph, but...

I have a hard time doing that. Some of my portraits are environmental with a one light setup, others are natural light, and others are two light setups with hotlights. My photographs would not be recognized as being MINE.

I know that it kind of depends on the situation, but what I'm talking about is the 'look' of a photograph. Do you think that it's better if most of a photographer's photographs have a similar look, or do you think it pigeon holes them?

 

[Josh66]

I can think of good arguments for both sides ... so, my answer is "it depends".

 

[MK3Brent]

I find that no mater what I'm shooting, all of my photos have my style... And that's independent of post processing. I don't know if that's a good thing or not, but it's kind of like a brand.

I think you should have more people look at your work and tell you if they see your work as your own style.
Being able to adapt means you're going to be pretty marketable, being you can shoot anything the way someone else may want it.

In any attempt, I think if no 2 of your photos look so much alike... then you're going to have some fresh and interesting shots every time.

 

[bhop]

My own stuff is all over the place, so I guess inconsistencies doesn't bother me.. although sometimes I wish I could stick to one "style" it's hard because I haven't really got digital results that I really love, and with film, I like to try different films which have different looks.. so.. uh.. yeah. At least with b&w film, I only use one kind, so that's something I guess.

 

[KmH]

Plus, style tends to change over time, so it's always a moving target.

Not having a style, is a style.

 

[Ernicus]

apparently my "style"' is filling up the frame with my subject. Unaware until posting here that I was even doing that.

It is obviously very subject to personal taste and opinion. My opinion is, if you want your work to stand out, develop your own style or way of doing things. If you want to create work that blends in with the rest...then shoot like the rest. Some have a natural style and some have to find their style. It really is subject to your own taste.

 

[sm4him]

Yeah, what KmH said. Generally, just when I find my 'style' some new shiny goal attracts me and off I go in a new direction!

Here's the thing, to me:
Yes, mish's flowers are identifiable as hers because of her unique style. BUT: Mishele doesn't ALWAYS shoot flowers...for instance, check out this thread she started last year. Or just check her started threads and you'll see that some of her stuff is different...because--while her flowers are wonderful and innovative and artistic and they make us ooh and aah--it would be boring as all get out to ONLY, ever, forever and always, shoot flowers like that.

The other thing is, I think MORE often than not, your "style" doesn't necessarily make your photos easily identifiable to everyone as YOURS. For example, schwetty has a pretty distinct "style." But honestly (and don't take this the wrong way, schwetty!)--if I saw some engagement shots that weren't labeled, I wouldn't necessarily look at them and say, "Oh, those are schwetty's."

It's good to have a "style" sometimes, because it shows you've got your own vision, your own artistic interpretation of what you are creating. But that doesn't mean you have to do that ALL. THE. TIME. That would be my definition of drudgery.

Now that I've just blathered on about for too long anyway, it occurs to me: I guess MY approach is much like that of an artist. More "periods" than "styles." Picasso and others had their blue periods and such when the work they did strayed from their usual "style."
I even saw some Andy Warhol pieces recently that looked NOTHING like what the public thinks of as a Warhol painting.

Currently, I am in my "macro" period. I just can't get enough of it--trying all sorts of different "styles" within that, using macro to create floral art and abstracts or insects...love the insects!

So, I guess my answer is: "No, I don't give a rat's behind about inconsistencies, especially in personal portfolios. Mine's all over the place--I'm TOO OLD to get stuck in a "style"...I'll shoot what I want, the WAY I want, for as long as it pleases me, and when I no longer enjoy it, I'll do something else.

ONE exception to this, though:
In a "series" I think inconsistent style is unprofessional looking. An engagement shoot where the photos are processed in so many ways that there is NO coherent style just look haphazard and amateur.

 

[rexbobcat]

I was kind of thinking the same things. I was just curious because there are always people here who will say "I love *insert photographer's website here* style on her portraits. How does she do it?" Or something along those lines. And I realized...I don't have that. The processing and feel of my photos change from photo to photo unless they are in a set or what not.

I was also wondering if it can make you more popular, or do people kind of fall into a consistent style after they "make it", because that style is what got them there and it's what keeps them there.

 

[Ernicus]

I met a local photog who does weddings and senior portraits mostly, and when browsing his portfolio I noticed a general theme and method in his pp work. I think a lot of it has to do with what you shoot professionally too. I agree that to break style mid shoot may not be the best thing, but that's just an uneducated opinion based on my thoughts of it.

 

[KmH]

Mishele's style is not unique. 1000's of people use extremely shallow DoF (visit flickr). Some, like Mishele, use it more effectively than others.

Which brings up a point - what many call style, isn't a style. It's just using a set of technical tools like extremely shallow DoF, over, and over again.

 

[rexbobcat]

Mishele's style is not unique. 1000's of people use extremely shallow DoF (visit flickr). Some, like Mishele, use it more effectively than others.

Which brings up a point - what many call style, isn't a style. It's just using a set of technical tools like extremely shallow DoF, over, and over again.

True, but her photos have a certain...look. In one of her recent threads people were asking how she gets that look, because normal shallow DoF does not produce the same results that she gets. She either does something in Photoshop, or when she takes the photos that adds more to the photo than just shallow DoF. Why do you think people enjoy her photos so much? Because they have shallow DoF, but at the same time there is a unique style to the finished photograph, even if the technical details aren't unique themselves. There is a certain abstract texture that it hard to explain that makes her photos recognizable.

I understand the technicalities of what she does in photographic terms, but the artistry is not so easy to pinpoint.

Sometimes style is hard to quantify, and it exists outside of the bounds of technical knowledge.

 

[fjrabon]

I think it's nice to have certain elements that you really like, and through practice have gotten really good at. But you also shouldn't be constrained by always jamming those elements down the throat of every image that might not so readily accept them. You can have elements that are stylistically 'yours' that don't show up all the time. A lot of times you may not even realize you do it until taking a bigger picture look at a LOT of your photos. For instance, in reading one of Michael Freeman's books, he had been a professional photographer for many years before he realized that a stylistic element he used a lot, enough for an outside observer to pick up on it were things 'almost but not quite' touching. He had never even thought about it or even noticed he favored those types of images, but after someone else pointed it out, he looked back over a lot of images and noticed it. It certainly wasn't in all of his images, or even a majority, but it was on enough to be a recognizable aspect of his style.

Personally, I really like contrast. Both in the literal, technical sense and the compositional sense. Does every picture I take exhibit one or both of those types of high contrast? no, not even close, but it's definitely noticeable if you look over a lot of my images. I also like a sort of 'delayed reaction' interplay between the subject and the background. This sort of 'effect' is actually fairly hard to find very easily, so it isn't even in very many of my photographs, but those that have it tend to be my favorites.

 

[KenC]

I think it's nice to have certain elements that you really like, and through practice have gotten really good at. But you also shouldn't be constrained by always jamming those elements down the throat of every image that might not so readily accept them. You can have elements that are stylistically 'yours' that don't show up all the time. A lot of times you may not even realize you do it until taking a bigger picture look at a LOT of your photos. For instance, in reading one of Michael Freeman's books, he had been a professional photographer for many years before he realized that a stylistic element he used a lot, enough for an outside observer to pick up on it were things 'almost but not quite' touching. He had never even thought about it or even noticed he favored those types of images, but after someone else pointed it out, he looked back over a lot of images and noticed it. It certainly wasn't in all of his images, or even a majority, but it was on enough to be a recognizable aspect of his style.

Personally, I really like contrast. Both in the literal, technical sense and the compositional sense. Does every picture I take exhibit one or both of those types of high contrast? no, not even close, but it's definitely noticeable if you look over a lot of my images. I also like a sort of 'delayed reaction' interplay between the subject and the background. This sort of 'effect' is actually fairly hard to find very easily, so it isn't even in very many of my photographs, but those that have it tend to be my favorites.

Agree completely with this. Style is one of those things, like "art", that is decided after the fact, usually by others. We should just do what we do and let the styles fall where they may.