What (do you think) is your style?

I am really happy that people were engaged in the field presence conversation. In another attempt to get maintain some good discussion, I am posing yet another question about photography that I hope gets some good traction.

I have been involved in this diversion for about 9 years now, and during that timeframe, my vision and style has changed a few times, because I was beginning to see a pattern among my images. The style that I prefer in nature photography (and settled upon) is one where the foreground elements are literally 'at your feet', giving the viewer a sense of being able to walk into the image. I'm confident that many photographers enjoy this strategy, as it is a classic style with today's wide-angle and tilt/shift lenses facilitating it. I would have to say that among my portfolio, about half of what I consider my best images, over 50% of them employ this methodology, and overall, I am happy with my ability to think this way while in the field.

So, this could be a limiting factor in my ability to 'see' certain things in nature that may be more appealing to a larger pool of viewers? Further, does this make me more of a pragmatist, rather than a an idealist? I'd like to to think that I balance the two enough to maintain an artistic/abstract sense of my vision, while also maintaining a sense of purposefulness of the photograph, but of course, this is up for heavy debate. Certainly, the best photographs are evocative and have a sweet balance of elements that make them, well - the most impressive photographs recorded. Very often this synergy is hard to achieve - probably mostly for the moral majority - but we know who is getting the awesomeness, and those are the guys who are fortunate to be doing this for a living - and my hat...is...off to those who are doing so.

I'd love to hear about your thoughts on this subject. Do you have an exclusive style(s) that you employ? Are you a pragmatist (do you go out and shoot stuff that you pre-visualize, inspired by another photographer's imagery, or maybe even for the purpose of revenue only?), or more of an idealist (one who goes and shoots a wide range of images to perfect a vision, thinks more like an abstract artist, and is content with getting shots that may be of unusual or uncontemporary style)?

My general conclusion on the subject is that most of us probably don't know! That is why I want to open up this subject. Of course, its easy to distinguish yourself from a serious artist who has representation at the MET versus an minimal online presence, BUT it doesn't exclude you from the conversation! Why? Because deep down we are all artists, no matter what level, motivation, self-awareness you have.

Oh I almost forgot - is there a photographer's style that you attempt to mimic? Who and why?

Thanks everyone!!!!
CGR

Dude, if you keep making us endure the act of actually thinking for ourselves, everyone will be afraid to open your posts!

Save all these topics for Saturday afternoons on the veranda. They would go well with tequila, sunshine, and the yoga girls.

I was worried you would say that CAZ. yoga girls, coffee shop turnover, highlands hotties, hmmm. Yeah for some reason I think those conversations may be a bit more... sophomoric... heehee.

If you want to abbreviate it, tell me in a few words, sentences, Morse-code it back... you guys are good for it I know.

____________________________________________________________________

My style leans more towards graphic shape and texture with a mellow color palette by today's standards. Switching to the large format camera changed quite a bit the way I see since I can create an image with intense detail. By no means do I always succeed, and I could sure use more time for this, but I'm pretty happy with where I've been going.

I've taken alot of influence from . .-.. .. --- - / .--. --- .-. - . .-. and .--. .... .. .-.. .-.. .. .--. / .... -.-- -.. .

-.- -... ....- ..- --. -.-

I'm not sure I have been doing this long enough to have developed a style as such. However, with my two jobs, fly fishing guide and my fly fishing in general. I take photos on the go as they are happening with little to no set up, pre visualization or time spent. I will on occasion go back to particuliar places that have potiential in some respect be it Bugs, Wildlife, Fish, Landscape etc. Sometimes it can be a tough choice when the hatch is on---do I fish or be the photographer :) I find myself in the process of planning specific excursions this summer to places that You All have inspired me to go. I'm evolving work in progress.

My two cents :)

I'd like to have a style, not sure if I have one yet. A lot of my better shots seem to fall into the large, grand landscape realm and I REALLY like to shoot with wide angles. Still, I try to force myself to visualize with the telephoto, isolate details. I love patterns and graphic elements and try to incorporate those whenever possible. At the same time, I want to get better at macro with my macro lens, beyond macro flower shots.
I've thought about trying to develop an identifiable style but I'm still exploring too many things to worry about focusing on set patterns. I figure it will identify itself someday.

I think style is for other people to comment on...

I think Dave nailed it.

I had to answer this exact question very recently for an article that is being done about me, my photography and my website. It was one of the most difficult questions that I have had to answer. What I discovered is that my "style", and what I create in an image is an emotional reaction to the natural world, and those emotions can vary (wildly) depending upon what I'm experiencing at any given moment.

Alain Briot has an interesting piece on "How to Establish a Personal Photographic Style"

I myself don't feel I have a particular style but have been told my images are identifiable as mine (not here on NPN). Not sure if that's a good thing or not, ie, that's so bad it has to be Pams I'm another one who likes to experiment with lots of different subjects just to broaden my range. I find myself using leading lines a lot in my landscapes so that might be part of "my style" there. I agree with Daves statement also.

Yes, yes -- I had not thought of that in this post, but your style should become evident to the viewers of your images. However, I still think you will become cognizant of it over time. It's your general interpretation of a particular subject. If you were to go shooting with a buddy for weeks on end, and you shot the same subject, and came home and compared compostions, lighting, overall stylistic approach, I believe you would see a pattern.

Alain says:

"Subject is what you photograph
Style is how you photograph it
You can photograph several subjects in the same style"

While this is true, would you?

I agree with Christopher. Your style emerges from your approach. My approach is conceptual usually--i come up with an idea and then i try to execute it. Of course, the result often doesnt match my expectations, but that doesnt matter. The second thing i try to do in photography (as opposed to my photo art) is capture an experience as closely and accurately that i can, using all the available tools and tricks. I think the series that ill post tomorrow is a good example of this whole idea, and the most recent series was inspired by the statements that Guy Tal made in his NPN interview this month.

I'd say my "style" definitely changes with subject matter.

Landscapes: sharp, high resolution, max depth of field, f/8 +.
Flowers: clean, soft backgrounds, minimal DOF, f/5.6 or less.

I initially applied my "landscape" style to flowers and didn't like it at all.

For me, my subjects are mainly flowers and macro stuff. If you consider each type of different flower a different subject, then yes, I guess I do. However, I would see all flowers as the same subject.

One of my personal 'styles' is also a method of shooting that we call 'cramming'. 'Cramming' is so named because if you are using a short macro lens then you can 'cram' the end of it through greenery, foliage, or other blooms to get a nice color wash in front of your subject. I 'cram' often when I am shooting flowers. I cannot think of a lot of situations where I would 'cram' with landscape shooting - though you could shoot past or through something in front of your subject - though in most cases with landscape shots I would see this as distracting from the shot instead of enhancing it. With flora photography, if 'cramming' is done right, then it helps the photo a lot.

So in answer to your last question, I would not photograph these different subjects with the same style.

I have several styles that I use. Sometimes in my studio I use very low light and photograph flowers in very dark conditions. When I can, and my subject will allow it, I cram. Sometimes I shoot with shallow DOF if the subject allows for it. Other times I like to use the multiple exposure feature on my camera to blend exposures for a different effect.

Those are my thoughts.

Nathan

And a wonderful style it is too, Nathan!

My style mirrors Bill Pelzman's as I shoot landscapes and flowers. I prefer wildflowers to cultivated, but will shoot those occasionally.

I also agree with Dave about others defining one's style.

And thanks, Adam for the link to Alain's article. He expressed the essence of what style is and how to get it more clearly than I have ever read.

The only thing I would add is I am influenced by many of the great masters of the past and present, and I particularly attempt to follow the Romanticists in my approach to my art.

I wondered what my 'style' was early on in my creative journey and since then I decided not to try and have a style, just simply photograph. This could easily lead into a converstaion of the creative process, which to me would be the root of style. I shoot what attracts my eye, occasionally I try to previsualize and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. For example on one of my last sessions (topic-Mystic Moods) I previsulaized the grass image on the way to the Salt Lake only after I saw the grasses. Then I previz'd a scene that I wanted to shoot for some time and those images I didn't think were very good. My favorite ones were created on the spot after I relaxed and got into the flow, and I used everything form wide angle to tele-zoom. Maybe a good question would be, what is style? Is it learned? Is it innate? Or is it as simple as preferring curves to angles, vert to horizontal, or wide angle to macro? No more rambling, adios.

Jeff, thanks for your input. Isn't it great when you arrive at a location and the longer you sit there the more scenes start showing up? I love being able to 'work' a single area.

Yes that is a good question, but not for this exercise. I think I've already outdone myself with all of this philosophical excrement.

I think my style is mostly "luck"....or maybe that's my method.

After 49 years in photography I have yet to discover a recognizable style. Maybe someone else can and that's why I keep supporting the economy by buying new gear.