I notice in lots of the URL reviews, comments are made to the effect that the commenter (is that a word!) thinks the photographer needs to work on a style of their own. Isn't ok just to try to take images that you yourself as pleased with, regardless of subject or style. What do you think?

-- Nigel Smith (nlandgl@eisa.net.au), May 12, 1999

Answers

You bet it's ok! That can be your style. Do what you like...that's what counts.

-- Trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), May 12, 1999.

Don't try to create a style. It will only be artificial, boring, and ultimately, limiting. Style comes out of who you are and is developed as you work at your photography. I highly recommend the book "On Being A Photographer" by Bill Jay and David Hurn. It is brief and inexpensive, but contains the best guidance I have found anywhere on how to grow as a photographer. Check amazon.com.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), May 12, 1999.

Not to belittle Dave's help or start something that firmly belongs in Alan's PoP forum but I'm wary of using prescribed routes for destinations unknown. Ya get me? I think finding your own "style" and making your own decisions are the only unrestrictive freedoms in photography. Books work really well for all the rest. Just me!

-- Trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), May 13, 1999.

It's always OK to make images just for yourself. Making them for someone else is pretty bad - unless you're in school and need the grade!

"Style" is just a way for critics to make their jobs easier. If you have a recognizable style, they don't have to think as much!

Seriously, you may already have a style and don't know it. Take a look at your best work and see if there's a trend - do you shoot subjects with curves, or a lot of straight lines? Do you like high contrast, soft images, or maybe pattern as the subject matter? Are you into macro, nature, or landscapes?

I never realized how much architectural work I did until someone (NOT a photographer) noticed it and pointed it out. Ask a friend - not necessarily an artist - to look at your work to see if they can spot any trends.

Even if it turns out you already have a style, you're allowed to ignore it anytime you want!

Happy

-- Nancy Goldstein (nfayegold@earthlink.net), May 13, 1999.

"Style" comes from making photographs. We all have a very unique way of seeing the world and those who wish to share that with others or explain to themselves will sometimes select photography as their means. If you are really shooting things that you are interested in and that move you in some way the work will develop a style of its own. Many image makes spend much to much time thinking about where their work "belongs" -gallery, publication, monograph, etc. and not enough time not thinking and just allowing the work to take them where 'it' wants to go.

-- jim megargee (jim@mvlabs.com), May 14, 1999.

Trib, read the book. It isn't at all what you probably imagine it to be.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), May 14, 1999.

Add together all the variables in photography. Pick your format, film , developer, paper, camera, len(s), perspective, cropping, subject matter, composition, influence of other photographers work on your outlook as photography as an art form. Add your outlook on life. That's 12 variables without trying too hard. Change any one a small amount and style changes and becomes unique to "you". We all do things just a "little" different. And some of those variables are large (such as "subject matter-heck that's the entire world). Produce enough volume of work, trying to stay consistant (easy to say hard to do), and your style will emerge all on it's own. Shoot a lot of pictures every week. Mostly try not to change those variables more often than one at a time, and even then not too often. Especially on things like lens/camera/film combibnations. All the equipment variables sort of kill any chance of your style emerging. But mostly shoot a lot of film. :-)

-- Peter Thoshinsky (camerabug1@msn.com), May 16, 1999.

Well Dave, I've read a great deal about art in art books, and I'm willing to read that one but if that book contains phrases like "complex qualities of feeling","an excercize in contemplation" or the insipid "drama of self" or any vagueries to that effect or the words millieu, luminosities, or any other such hot air artspeak or bullshit padded terms, I'll just burn that sucker. I'll whip out my Hellman quote for you now, "Never listen to authors talk about themselves or their work."

-- Trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), May 17, 1999.

A while ago I gave my 3 year old daughter some picture-taking advice: look through the finder and when you see what you like, take the picture. As I was giving her these age-appropriate directions, it dawned on me that this is advice more advanced photographers should take as well.

So...when you see what you like, take the picture. The rest is commentary which, as Trib points out, is often a bunch of hot air.

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), May 17, 1999.

Trib, "On Being A Photographer" contains absolutely nothing that resembles the examples you mentioned. It is so simple, clear, and straightforward that it is much more akin to Mason Resnick's above posting than to artspeak. Yet it adds so much depth to Resnick's basic advice that it is very much worth reading.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), May 17, 1999.

On the strength of Dave's recommendation, I've added "On Being A Photographer: A Practical Guide" to the B&W World book store in case anyone following this thread is interested in checking it out. For around $12 it sounds like a good read. You can now buy it by going to http://www.photogs.com/bwworld/bwbooks.

A note about availability: the book was published in 1997 and is only available via special order, which means it may take a few weeks before you get your copy. I've checked B&N and Amazon and they would have to special-order it

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), May 18, 1999.

No thanks, I'll stick to my guns! What else would you expect from me? Ok Dave, I'll bite, what specifically did reading that book do for you? What needed justifications were gleaned? What insights? Why would I employ Mason's or anyone else's justifications? What added depth? Cite examples please! quotes are nice too! Ya see 12 bucks is damn near 4 packs of smokes and you don't want me to do without my smokes do ya? Personally I preferred Mason's personal response than someone telling me I should buy a book. I value Mason's response a great deal more, because if I want to, I can call him out on it and more importantly get him to respond to my questions. Much, much more valuable than some damned book, don't you think? I'd like us to strain to the admirable task (put to us by pioneers like Mason and Alan and Phil) of aiding our fellow photogs even if through vitriole, we can connect. Tech books are fabulous references, art books are well, just that, art books. Art history is important in context too, as are exhibitions but justifications from without are hollow, passing and insubstantial. IHOP and Magnify Slack!

Toodles,

Trib

-- Trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), May 18, 1999.

Thanks everyone, it's been an interesting discussion. I've almost finished loading my 'gallery' with some pics so I'll post the URL in the URL forum shortly and you can all let have a sqiz at my snapshots. There are several colour pics but you'll be able to ignore them :)

-- Nigel Smith (nlandgl@eisa.net.au), May 18, 1999.

No, Trib, I'm not going to digest it for you. Read it yourself or do without. It cost me 25 of my J.R. special cigars, and worth every missed puff.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), May 18, 1999.

Well Dave, I didn't ask you to digest(?, condense, maybe) it, just part of it, hell a coupla sentences is all I ask for, but no. It doesn't speak well about my ability to communicate. The short answer isn't really better than none, i guess, to sum up my last post in your fashion. I really was interested to hear one or two quotes from the book, oh well. I maybe come off like a bull in the heather and that's why so many folks got the fear. Just trying to learn. Interesting bout' your ceegars. I quit smoking them about 10 years ago when they became popular, the prices are still too rich for me. I remember what a buck cigar was in 1984, the same model sells for close to 6 bills today, whew, not on your life! You collect any ceegar memorobilia? I've got some old stuff I need appraised...know anyone? anyway sorry to scare you off, it's my curse ! You sure that book you love isn't "dianetics for photographers", hehehe just a parting shot from your arch-nemisis.

-- Trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), May 19, 1999.

Okay, Trib, here's a quote from the chapter on selecting a subject.

"...most teachers, classes, workshops, books, whatever, imply that how the picture is made, what techniques were employed, why it looks different and artistic, is more important than the subject matter. Yet the photographer is, primarily, a subject-selector. Much as it might offend the artistically inclined, the history of photography is primarily the history of the subject matter. So a photographer's first decision is what to photograph."

From the chapter on Cameras, Shoes, and Other Essentials:

"A photographer may not just walk the streets, but he/she does a lot of walking with a purpose, so the most important piece of equipment after a camera is a good pair of shoes."

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), May 19, 1999.

Thanks Dave,

Nothing earth shattering there, I still think I can do without, I'm still not finished with all the books I need to read. Haven't got to the "reading for pleasure" books yet(though some are very pleasurable). Probably won't either, too much good stuff out there by writers. He's direct in the quotes you've supplied, I'll give him that but in that I'm mean not wordy or flowery like most of his contemporaries, substantive issues aside. "Nose on your face" kinda writing. Taking the obvious and expounding too much, I think. Not what I expected but not necessarily for everyone. Let me say also, that's just me Dave. I rarely seek outside influences on my photography and only then it's tech stuff. I've purposely cut down on my exposure to exhibits and photo books not for fear of emulation or emulation phobias but because 99% of it is shit. Now where does that put your recommendation, I haven't read it so I won't go there but I read around 6 books a week and maybe someday I'll be able to tell you.

-- Trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), May 20, 1999.

I understand where you're coming from, Trib. I won't participate in the PPA because I believe they encourage imitative photography. But I love to read and I especially love to read about photography and look at the work of other photographers. In my book, I credit Fritz Henle, Elliot Erwitt, Robert Doisneau, and B.A. King as being the ones who have been most instrumental in teaching me to see photographically. Yet, my work doesn't resemble theirs at all.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), May 20, 1999.

Style

This is a good thread and appropriate for creativity. I was told that I have a stlye but I never realized it. I don't often read about the philosophy or how-to's of photography but look at every portfolio that I can and that influences me or 'opens my eyes' to possibilities. I have often taken shots that reminded me of some of my favourite photographers and felt guilty about it. However when I have shown or posted them I often get the response that they are unique or original and clearly show my 'style'. No one has said "hey this guys ripping off Jousef Koudelka...kill him" etc. I don't know what to make of it. I guess if you photograph enough then you develop a stlye or signature without knowing or trying. I don't think it has much to do with technique but more what you choose to photograph and how much you let the world see of it.

-- Andy Laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), May 21, 1999.

Dave,

A buddy and fan of yours came over last night and traded me two of his contraband cubans for two hours of darkroom rental. Oh, you should have smelled that darkroom. Just tryin' to make you jealous.

-- Trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), May 26, 1999.

I've just stumbled across Some photographic myths, extracted from the 'On being a photographer'.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), May 28, 1999.

27) Personally, indicate how you rate the Y2K problem.   (Total Votes: 891)

1. It's a nonevent, a hoax, and I'm ignoring the hype: 106	11.9%
2. It's a hoax, but I'll have extra cash and food: 69	7.7%
3. It will be like a natural disaster lasting a few days, but I have yet to prepare: 175	19.6%
4. It will be like a natural disaster lasting a few days, and I'm preparing for it: 368	41.3%
5. It will be a major problem lasting weeks, but I have yet to prepare: 27	3.0%
6. It will be a major problem lasting weeks, and I am preparing for it: 84	9.4%
7. It's a disaster lasting months, but I have yet to prepare: 3	0.3%
8. It's a disaster lasting months, and I am preparing for it: 19	2.1%
9. It's a catastrophe, but I have yet to prepare: 1	0.1%
10. It's a catastrophe, and I am taking drastic measures to prepare for it: 7	0.8%
11. Not sure: 32	3.6%

-- a (a@a.a), June 18, 1999.