Style

No, I'm not referring to whether it's ok to wear a baseball cap (it is, but it lowers your IQ 10 points, 20 if you wear it backwards). What I'm talking about is the way some people (generally people who are better known than you or I), have a defineable style, that their images are recognizable by their style, and that better or worse, this is something that galleries and publishers look for.

So this raises the following questions:

1) is it good or even essential to have a style?

2) how do I go about buying one if they are that important?

3) doesn't sticking to one style translate into boring and repetitive?

4) what the hell is style anyway? If I only photograph frogs is that a style?

OK, here's my thoughts and observations on the subject:

- style is how you photograph something, not what you photograph

- style can change over time - a photographer might be known for his dark moody prints, and for any one of a variety of reasons, decide to or happen to change style to high key printing.

- having a style gives a consistency to a body of work which makes it more salable, looks better in a show and is more likely to be accepted by the powers that be.

- style can be based on equipment and how it's used - grainy hand held closeups , slow shutter speed with the subject showing some movement. On the other hand it doesn't have to be - I have been printing a portfolio of badlands images and they are a mix of 4X5 and digital and I defy anyone to tell which is which.

- style can be copied - Michael Kenna is known for his moody simple compositions, often in poor weather or at night, square format, black and white. These are straight forward ideas which anyone could copy. It begs the question of whether they could do it as effectively as Michael and even if they could, why bother, Michael already does it very well thank you.

- my own photography didn't take off till I stopped trying to be Ansel Adams - an experience a number of us have had judging by magazine bios.

- photography is hard enough without wasting time working on several different styles at once - we need to spend enough time and energy working in one style that we get good at it. There's nothing wrong with changing styles - if Picasso could change style, why not us - but remember he did it after being in the previous style for 10 years - and he worked at it full time - for the average part time photographer, that would imply a change in style about once every lifetime.

- if you can't buy syle at B&H or Calumet, how do you go about acquiring style? I think that for most of us is simply happens over time - we lean towards doing things a certain way, photographing in a particular way, printing to a certain level of darkness or contrast. I suspect that successful photographers none of them went out and decided that to be great they needed a style and planned one out.

- even if people normally stumble into a style over time, should you actually make an effort to acquire a style - should you in fact select a style from an imaginary style catalogue - # 33, with a 5% additional darkness and a sprinkle of highlight bleed - please. I don't know the answer to this one - I am sceptical of doing it deliberately - I suspect that one has to have reason to move in a certain direction - Picasso didn't move into his cubism period because he felt it would be good for business - for years it wasn't - he moved that way because he needed to express himself and this was a way to do it.

- deciding on a style as a plan of attack is rather like deciding to photograph dogs with clothes on (the dog) because you hear it sells well - a bit too calculated - I can't help but feel that style could come from the soul, not the brain. No proof, just instinct.

- having a style implies moving beyond the experimental stage - an area many hobbyists find themselves stuck in - it means that having experimented you find something that works for you, perhaps is even important to you - and translates your ideas into prints.

This then begs the question - do I have a style - I think I do - but perhaps others are far better judges of that - anyone care to describe my style? It can't be subject matter - you have seen me post pictures from landscapes top abstracts to industrial to underwear to a dirty bathtub. I shoot with lenses from 17 to 300 mm. so that isn't it. I shoot both colour and black and white. Some of my images are long and narrow while many are square - so it isn't going to be anything as simple as that. Perhaps what this is telling me is that in fact I don't have a style even if I think I do. I'd be interested in your opinion. Remember, this has nothing to do with good or bad, nothing to do with the quality of images, just simply is there anything which ties my images together?

While you are at it, see if you can put in writing your own style and lets see how people describe their work.