what is your "photgraphic style" ?

[kathyt]

To me, "style" is a buzzword people often use to justify poor photographs.
It ranks right up there with "artistic choice"

Personally, I don't care much for the labels people use in the photography business.
"Lifestyle photography"
"Natural light photography"
"Some special style photography"

People should just be a photographer and learn how to shoot under whatever conditions are needed to get the client the results they want.

I completely disagree with this. If you do not have a style, or call it whatever you want, there would be no way to set yourself apart from the rest of the millions of "photographers" out there. If your portfolio is all over the place, then I think you will have a hard time finding consistent, steady, reliable clients that will keep coming back to you again and again. The key work Pixel used was cohesive.

 

[kathyt]

I agree Emily. For a long time I wanted to know what my 'style' was. Finally, I gave up, and my style found me. It is ever evolving, ever changing. But I still think style is what separates us from one another. I think once you start shutting out other people's voices and listening to your own,your true style will really emerge.

Yep, I agree. Your style will find you, and in your case it surely did.

 

[TamiAz]

Still waiting for mine to emerge.. I'm still experimenting to find what type of photography I'm passionate about, but I'm learning a lot as I go!!

 

[407370]

My style changes.

I go through arty periods where I break all the rules and produce really abstract pictures after spending hours processing a single image.

I am just going through a camel phase where I apply the normal rules and only crop the images.

I dont have customers so I have the freedom to please myself and I do.

CHEERS

 

[minicoop1985]

My style is "Terrible."



No, but really, what I find myself trying do to most are landscapes and products. I'm not bad at products, but landscapes, I could use some practice/the right equipment/to know what the right equipment even IS/or is it just me (it probably is). I love to do night cityscenes.

 

[pixmedic]

To me, "style" is a buzzword people often use to justify poor photographs.
It ranks right up there with "artistic choice"

Personally, I don't care much for the labels people use in the photography business.
"Lifestyle photography"
"Natural light photography"
"Some special style photography"

People should just be a photographer and learn how to shoot under whatever conditions are needed to get the client the results they want.

I completely disagree with this. If you do not have a style, or call it whatever you want, there would be no way to set yourself apart from the rest of the millions of "photographers" out there. If your portfolio is all over the place, then I think you will have a hard time finding consistent, steady, reliable clients that will keep coming back to you again and again. The key work Pixel used was cohesive.

I'm not debating the value of having a consistent body of work. That is obviously important. What I find silly is the need for people to label themselves with meaningless titles.
Do you have a name for your portfolio? Do you bottleneck yourself into one particular type of shoot? Or do consider yourself a well rounded photographer that can cater to many types of clients? If you had to name your "style", what would it be? Could you pin it down to one? Or would you have to use many descriptions to cover your talents, making labeling yourself with one "style" useless?

consistent and cohesive are not "styles", they are simply what an experienced photographer has.
I think a good photographer has no need for labels. They can shoot whatever is needed in whatever conditions are present. Their work speaks for itself.
I don't label myself a "portrait" photographer.
or a "flash" photographer.
Or a "formal" photographer....even though those are mostly what I do. I am just a photographer.

 

[sashbar]

Style comes from vision and ability to consistently translate this vision of the world into a photographic image. You may be a very good photographer but it does not nessesary mean you have your own or indeed any style. At the same time there are artists that consiously create and develope their own style that makes their work instantly recognisable. To do so one needs to know what he is doing, why and how. That, as I said comes from artistic vision and conscious desire to say or show something using the language of art. To have your style you have to start asking yourself questions that most photographers never ask. I have seen probably a couple of guys on this forum who can say they have a strong, distinct style. One of them was Pascal Riben.

 

[Rick58]

Style? I'm not sure I have one. I record things around me that catches my eye. I try to do this in a way that takes it a notch above the simple record shot while still recording only the facts.

 

[DSRay]

To me, "style" is a buzzword people often use to justify poor photographs.
It ranks right up there with "artistic choice"

Personally, I don't care much for the labels people use in the photography business.
"Lifestyle photography"
"Natural light photography"
"Some special style photography"

People should just be a photographer and learn how to shoot under whatever conditions are needed to get the client the results they want.

I completely disagree with this. If you do not have a style, or call it whatever you want, there would be no way to set yourself apart from the rest of the millions of "photographers" out there. If your portfolio is all over the place, then I think you will have a hard time finding consistent, steady, reliable clients that will keep coming back to you again and again. The key work Pixel used was cohesive.

Cohesion is not part of a 'style'. Cohesion is a relationship status of a number of images and it is possible to apply a 'style' over a wide range of subject matters. In fact, a photographer with a 'style' could not help but do so. It is true what you say about style setting a person apart from the millions of other photographers and it is painfully apparent that millions of photographers don't have a 'style' other than cliche (of course this could [would] lead to the dreaded discussion of what constitutes a photographer). I don't consider the assembling of a portfolio to have any role in establishing a style; it will merely reflect it.

 

[Dagwood56]

I recently read an article somewhere online, can't recall who wrote it or what the site was, but it explained photographic style. They said that photographic style is an extension or your personality. The author said we all have an artistic genre that way see things in - how you look at the subjects you choose; impressionism, surrealism etc. subject is what you photograph and style is how you photograph it and you can take photos of many different things using the same style. It referenced the f64 style used by Weston, Adams and some others. All that being said, I still can't define what exactly I would say my style is.

 

[kathyt]

To me, "style" is a buzzword people often use to justify poor photographs.
It ranks right up there with "artistic choice"

Personally, I don't care much for the labels people use in the photography business.
"Lifestyle photography"
"Natural light photography"
"Some special style photography"

People should just be a photographer and learn how to shoot under whatever conditions are needed to get the client the results they want.

I completely disagree with this. If you do not have a style, or call it whatever you want, there would be no way to set yourself apart from the rest of the millions of "photographers" out there. If your portfolio is all over the place, then I think you will have a hard time finding consistent, steady, reliable clients that will keep coming back to you again and again. The key work Pixel used was cohesive.

I'm not debating the value of having a consistent body of work. That is obviously important. What I find silly is the need for people to label themselves with meaningless titles.
Do you have a name for your portfolio? Do you bottleneck yourself into one particular type of shoot? Or do consider yourself a well rounded photographer that can cater to many types of clients? If you had to name your "style", what would it be? Could you pin it down to one? Or would you have to use many descriptions to cover your talents, making labeling yourself with one "style" useless?

consistent and cohesive are not "styles", they are simply what an experienced photographer has.
I think a good photographer has no need for labels. They can shoot whatever is needed in whatever conditions are present. Their work speaks for itself.
I don't label myself a "portrait" photographer.
or a "flash" photographer.
Or a "formal" photographer....even though those are mostly what I do. I am just a photographer.

I don't bottleneck myself, but I am sure the clients who hire me will have similar things to say about my "style" of work. It is just a fact.
Yes, I am a well rounded photographer.
Yes, I do cater to different types of clients, but ultimately they come to me because our visions might be similar.

 

[PixelRabbit]

Limr:
Mysterious, nostalgic, available light, quirky, fun , reflective....

Judi, I tried to think of some words for your work, but you have so many different looks on flickr! You really have some awesome stuff there!

Thanks for looking Paige!
This might fit.... "eclectic" at least it's how I see myself, in reality I'm just all over the place, I rarely "plan" anything, I have ideas in my head and every once in a while one will happen to come out lol in between the ideas coming out there's birds, squirrels, bugs, snow... just about anything in front of me is free game lol

eclectic
noun
noun: eclectic; plural noun: eclectics

• 1.
  a person who derives ideas, style, or taste from a broad and diverse range of sources.
  
  
  
  
  

 

[paigew]

I completely disagree with this. If you do not have a style, or call it whatever you want, there would be no way to set yourself apart from the rest of the millions of "photographers" out there. If your portfolio is all over the place, then I think you will have a hard time finding consistent, steady, reliable clients that will keep coming back to you again and again. The key work Pixel used was cohesive.

I'm not debating the value of having a consistent body of work. That is obviously important. What I find silly is the need for people to label themselves with meaningless titles.
Do you have a name for your portfolio? Do you bottleneck yourself into one particular type of shoot? Or do consider yourself a well rounded photographer that can cater to many types of clients? If you had to name your "style", what would it be? Could you pin it down to one? Or would you have to use many descriptions to cover your talents, making labeling yourself with one "style" useless?

consistent and cohesive are not "styles", they are simply what an experienced photographer has.
I think a good photographer has no need for labels. They can shoot whatever is needed in whatever conditions are present. Their work speaks for itself.
I don't label myself a "portrait" photographer.
or a "flash" photographer.
Or a "formal" photographer....even though those are mostly what I do. I am just a photographer.

I don't bottleneck myself, but I am sure the clients who hire me will have similar things to say about my "style" of work. It is just a fact.
Yes, I am a well rounded photographer.
Yes, I do cater to different types of clients, but ultimately they come to me because our visions might be similar.

No one is labeling/titling themselves pixmedic. The thread was "what is your photographic style" I can think of a handful of photographers HERE that have a distinct style. Describing your style is just that, describing your work. Not labeling. Just because you have a cohesive style of shooting/editing does not mean that you cannot shoot ANYTHING, with a style that relates to you. Flash, natural light...that has nothing to do with style. That would be the more technical side of things.

Take Binga and Mischelle...they certainly have a distinct style no? People can recognize their work due to their distinctive style.

 

[pixmedic]

I just don't like the word, that's all.
The thread is about style, and I voiced an opinion on it. Just like plenty of other people did. I didn't say it was the right opinion , or the only opinion, just that it is "my" opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[paigew]

I just don't like the word, that's all.
The thread is about style, and I voiced an opinion on it. Just like plenty of other people did. I didn't say it was the right opinion , or the only opinion, just that it is "my" opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

Hey do you have a website or flickr account I can look at? I'd love to see a bunch of your work...all in one place