Style, tell me about yours

[jowensphoto]

I hate the term "style." I hate the question, "What kind of style do you have?" even more.

So, I ask, what kind of style do you have? What kind of style do you intend?

Was your "style" something you fell into completely accidentally, or did you arrive to where you are on purpose? Can you pin-point an image, where it all began (share if you'd like!)?

What/who has inspired your current style?

For those who have been at it awhile, it what ways has your style evolved, since you first had a set, established style?


Answer as many or as few questions as you'd like.

I started thinking about this today while looking at my most recent images. Even different genres (portrait, still life, landscapes) still have the same "look." I found what I like by accident (not to be a total kiss-arse, but it was while I was trying to figure out Mish's secrets). Here's where I knew I was on to something that I wanted to incorporate in all my photos.

 

[tirediron]

So just a partial kiss-arse then?

I'd say my "style" (I too dislike that word) is one of clean, well lit (by my standard) images, and free of a lot of "effects". It's not anything that I consciously think about, it's just a look that I like, that I've developed over time.

 

[TrustDust]

It is actually a very valid question, for me in anycase...

I started of really liking very vivid colors (not HDR vivid) but where everything is very well defined shooting anything bar portraits. Recently I've lost myself in B&W but not overly processed just so that I try and get the image to do the talking instead of the processing forcing you to try and understand/get the idea/mood of the photograph. Now being at it for a while I started to get a real appreciation for the way people used to shoot and I think I also understand why some of the best pics for me personally is B&W.

Will I stay with B&W forverer? No, certainly not I am currently experimenting with old FD lenses and the main reason is that I want to go through the whole process called photography. I want to appreciate everything I have today including the gear I am able to buy and the appreciation of what technology can do for us as photographers either starter, int or expert.

I really love the journey and the personal development that photography takes you on...

 

[Derrel]

Minimalist. "Straight photography". Not a lot of effects. Striving for classic looks that do not bear evidence of fads, or trends, or hip,cool-new-new "look at what I can do on my com-pooter!" crap. My idols are classical shooters like August Sander, Irving Penn, and Edward Weston. People who could compose a photo that would stand on its own, for decades, and not look artificially trendy or contrived,and who were masters of their medium. I don't care about what other people are shooting, or what they are doing. I quit caring about trying to be trendy a long,long time ago.

 

[jowensphoto]

So just a partial kiss-arse then?

I'd say my "style" (I too dislike that word) is one of clean, well lit (by my standard) images, and free of a lot of "effects". It's not anything that I consciously think about, it's just a look that I like, that I've developed over time.

Yup, she even quoted me in her siggy :greenpbl: Her flowers piqued my interest, a different way of looking at things, so I went out and tried some free lensing and reverse macro. That flower is what I came up with. I don't use either of those techniques much anymore, but it was a good push in what I like to think is the right direction.

Thanks for the insightful answers, every one

I started out as the epitome of a newb: picnic and Picassa were my go too editing tools, and over saturation was a must. After much experimentation, I've found that I'm drawn to floaty pastels and images that are a bit on the "over exposed" side. Light and fluffy, like cotton candy lol

 

[Buckster]

First thing that comes to mind about my images is that I tend to go "super-saturated" most of the time.

It's a conscious decision for me, and reflects on the idea that I'm trying to cram all 5 senses that I either experienced or wanted to experience with my photograph through a single sense, a single pair of eyeballs, in the viewer. I want to try to force them to smell it through their eyeballs; to taste it through their eyeballs; to hear it through their eyeballs; to FEEL it through their eyeballs. I want to SLAM it into their brains through their eyeballs. Most of the time, that is.

Other than for specific documentary purposes, I've never much been interested in trying to produce images that try to emulate commonly perceived "reality" in color and tone. To me, that's just like using a camera as a Xerox machine, and I was always more interested in creating art; Creating what I WANTED to see, what I INTERPRETED from the world around me. The many LSD experiences I enjoyed in my wilder, mind-expanding youth may have played a part in that expansion of visual awareness and openness to interpretation, so... yeah... there's that too...

No doubt, to some folks it's just over the top in many cases, but it's what I like. It's what I've always liked, both in my work and others'. I'm just really attracted to bright, bold colors most of the time, I guess.

I can't pinpoint when it first hit me, but it was very early on in the late 60's/early 70's when I first got interested in photography. Likely very saturated images I'd seen in mags like NG. Somewhere along the line I had to try Kodachrome a bit underexposed, then Velvia came along and I just loved that stuff, then Photoshop allowed me full access to darkroom techniques I'd only dreamed of that let me get more control over it, and finally digital cameras combined with Photoshop took me all the way to where I'd longed to go from the beginning.

That's not to say I don't appreciate and fully enjoy seeing and working with other styles and genres, because I very much do. Muted, pastels, black and white, sepia, split-toning, HDR, etc., etc., etc., I've dabbled in all kinds of styles over the years, and still do, and enjoy seeing the results from others who produced works with them.

But I always return to the super-saturated instinctually as my go-to "style".

 

[Derrel]

Super-saturated always makes me think of Jay Maisel's early color work...he had a huge influence on many people.

Print Portfolio | Jay Maisel Photography

 

[amolitor]

I don't have enough clarity of vision to have a style, I'm too much a dilettante and not enough of an artist. I know what style *is* and I have some pretty clear ideas about how to get one, but I'm not the kind of guy who pulls one or more of them together and uses them. Knowing how to get one has, to my regret, underlined for me the fact that it's not gonna happen.

I do like more blacks in my photos than normal people do, but that's not enough to constitute a "style" in any meaningful way.

Most amateur photographers are like me, I suspect. Trying new stuff out is more fun than refining old stuff. Pros have to develop one or more styles, since a style is largely what you're selling. Serious artists will also work within one or a very small set of styles as well, if they want to be successful.

 

[kathyt]

First thing that comes to mind about my images is that I tend to go "super-saturated" most of the time.

It's a conscious decision for me, and reflects on the idea that I'm trying to cram all 5 senses that I either experienced or wanted to experience with my photograph through a single sense, a single pair of eyeballs, in the viewer. I want to try to force them to smell it through their eyeballs; to taste it through their eyeballs; to hear it through their eyeballs; to FEEL it through their eyeballs. I want to SLAM it into their brains through their eyeballs. Most of the time, that is.

Other than for specific documentary purposes, I've never much been interested in trying to produce images that try to emulate commonly perceived "reality" in color and tone. To me, that's just like using a camera as a Xerox machine, and I was always more interested in creating art; Creating what I WANTED to see, what I INTERPRETED from the world around me. The many LSD experiences I enjoyed in my wilder, mind-expanding youth may have played a part in that expansion of visual awareness and openness to interpretation, so... yeah... there's that too...

No doubt, to some folks it's just over the top in many cases, but it's what I like. It's what I've always liked, both in my work and others'. I'm just really attracted to bright, bold colors most of the time, I guess.

I can't pinpoint when it first hit me, but it was very early on in the late 60's/early 70's when I first got interested in photography. Likely very saturated images I'd seen in mags like NG. Somewhere along the line I had to try Kodachrome a bit underexposed, then Velvia came along and I just loved that stuff, then Photoshop allowed me full access to darkroom techniques I'd only dreamed of that let me get more control over it, and finally digital cameras combined with Photoshop took me all the way to where I'd longed to go from the beginning.

That's not to say I don't appreciate and fully enjoy seeing and working with other styles and genres, because I very much do. Muted, pastels, black and white, sepia, split-toning, HDR, etc., etc., etc., I've dabbled in all kinds of styles over the years, and still do, and enjoy seeing the results from others who produced works with them.

But I always return to the super-saturated instinctually as my go-to "style".

My style would be bright, soft, and hazy at times. I usually expose about 1/3 to a full stop over on my images, portraits, to get very bright and soft skin tones. This saves me alot of time in PP. I have a custom preset that adds a medium contrast curve, exposure bump, and vibrance adjustment that I use upon import. Then I will go and do my WB adjustments from there and add sharpening. That is usually about it for me. It is nice you can appreciate and enjoy other peoples' style that is not necessarily your own. I do as well.

 

[amolitor]

My style would be bright, soft, and hazy at times. I usually expose about 1/3 to a full stop over on my images, portraits, to get very bright and soft skin tones. This saves me alot of time in PP. I have a custom preset that adds a medium contrast curve, exposure bump, and vibrance adjustment that I use upon import. Then I will go and do my WB adjustments from there and add sharpening. That is usually about it for me. It is nice you can appreciate and enjoy other peoples' style that is not necessarily your own. I do as well.

This is perfect.

My definition of a "style" is this: a set of photographic choices, made in advance, and made the same way for a group of pictures. In order to be a style the choices have to create a visual coherence. The result of making these choices has to result in a group of pictures that "look the same" in some meaningful way. It could be a choice of subjects, a choice of how colors are handled, any photographic choices at all. Simply choosing "black and white" isn't enough to really connect the images together as a coherent body of work. Black and white photographs of shoes might be.

Kathy's got a look she likes, a look she's selling, and she's turned it into a set of very specific photographic choices that allow her to produce that look on command. The very essence of professionalism here, I think. Not only does this create a marketable style it simplifies the work to a degree. Many choices are pre-made, there's no mucking around on-site. Well, less mucking around.

 

[cynicaster]

Interesting topic. I’m at the point where I’ve been doing this stuff just long enough that I’m starting to fall into what might be called a “style”.

For subject matter, I’m finding that I have the most fun taking candid photos of people, “creative” type stills that are probably only of any interest to me, and the odd landscape. For whatever reason, wildlife, bugs, flowers, and “say cheeeese!” type portraits do not interest me in the least.

For me, a candid photo is a success if it emphasizes—maybe even exaggerates—something about the subject and/or the situation. A longing glance to suggest daydreaming, hair slightly blown across the face to suggest a spring breeze, etc.

For post processing, I’m not a big fan of those images that have that abrupt/jarring sense the moment you lay eyes on them that they’ve been processed 6 ways from Sunday. HDR often has this effect for me, so I have no desire to dabble with it.

I might be a bit of a contrast junkie, though. Pictures straight out of the camera often look a bit too flat to my eyes, so I usually provide at least a small bump to contrast in post.

 

[jowensphoto]

One source of inspiration: Galleries of Impressionist Photographs Eva Polak

Though I obviously don't take things quite that far, I love what she does.

 

[mishele]

I don't know that I ever decided on a "style". I just knew I wanted to show people something they never saw before. My inspiration came from hours and hours of searching through flickr. I would take bits and pieces of shots I liked and try to combine them.

Thanks for the shout out, Jess!!

 

[jowensphoto]

LOL sure thing. I told ya, it's that creative process induced boner.

Should I call the doc yet? It's been over 4 hours.:meh:

 

[bentcountershaft]

I still don't think I have a style, or at least there isn't anything I consciously try to put in my work. I think maybe I the closest I come to a style is the way I look at things and that might show in my work, but that's about it. My style is my lack of style.

With the resurrection of the monthly photo challenge it will be kind of interesting to see how successfully we can recognize each other's work without the benefit of titles.