Something I think about from time to time is an artist’s style or theme they apply to their work. I was visiting a few websites lately where the photographers had all of their images with the same monochrome toning regardless of subject. It looks very nice when presenting a portfolio – consistency of presentation is important. But when looking deeper at the images, I began to think – was that toning for the purpose of complimenting the subject – or just to make the ‘style’ of the image look like all the rest. Sometimes I wonder if it was really the best choice.
I struggle with this consistency concept in my own work. Just looking through my latest images you can see a whole range of image types and styles because I tend to develop an image based upon what I think accents the subject or what feeling I had when making the exposure. Sometimes I just enjoy discovering new techniques. Since I don’t have any particular ‘style’ I try to adhere to, perhaps this results in too much variety of presentation?
Is it better to cram a subject into adhering to a particular style, or trying to be as flexible as possible in making that single image complimentary to what’s important for that particular subject? I don’t know for sure – I see advantages both ways. For the image here – I thought this trillium sepal looked interesting graphically in the field and I shot it. When reviewing it at home, I thought the red petals overpowered the graphical nature of the shape. So I began playing with some stored Lightroom presets and found an old toning B&W that I liked. I don’t do this toning a lot, but know there are many photographers that might just apply this to everything.
There is something to be said for image recognition in the art business. This is where a unique look has huge advantages. Someone may see a particular image and it is beneficial if they can tie that immediately with a name. Either way is to each his/her own I suppose. It is always something I am thinking about on what is the better road to take.
Interesting post and something I think develops over time. I’m new to the site – looks a great resource.
– Paul @ http://www.photographyvoter.com
Thinking about this a little further, I know some images are stronger if part of a portfolio of a similar style than if presented individually. I suppose this is somewhat like a team – a weaker individual can be strengthened by a strong team vs. trying to perform alone.
Thank you for all the great comments. I wish I had my own mind completely made up on this subject. I will say that within a certain subset of subjects, I may adhere to a particular style I suppose. But it is difficult for me to apply the same approach from a bird to a landscape to a macro shot.
It may also depend on the audience and format you are presenting. I can see if you are putting together a portfolio for a gallery or publisher to review, then there are definite advantages to having common themes and consistency.
google’s blog search for “nature” brought me 2 your wonderful site. With a few penny in my pockets, old pc, and a lousy camera phone the hobby of taking shots has gotten into my life. Your site will sure help me a lot 2 learn but wish you had some contents for people like me- the novice guys. Any ways have a great day everyone.
My advice is dont stick to one style. Its boring. When I walk into the woods I dont see the same exact plants, bugs, wildlife, and trees. Its all different from one another, even the same species.
So I take that as a hint from nature that the same thing over and over is redundant….very boring.
Which is why your archive is pleasant to look at. It has variety.
I agree that this is an important topic. While a signature style is wonderful, I’d hate to think it stifled my art. You’re right–remain open to new possibilities and try something different now and then. I do like that old-tone b/w effect. Very nice.
Mark, a very thoughtful and thought-provoking post, and I’d have to agree that it’s certainly desirable to develop a unique and recognizable style all your own, but without taking a formulaic and perhaps often inappropriate approach to all subjects.
I also must say that I’m so glad I clicked on your “latest images” link — so many lovely treasures there!
I struggle with this as well and have allowed myself to also work with a subject as I feel fit at the moment. The difficulty may be more in describing our styles more than in trying to work within one. However, I also think from an artistic standpoint that it is both good for the mind and possibly good for sales to have bodies of work that can be put into certain style boxes. I think it fosters a kind of creativity when we push ourselves to create within some constraint. And while I don’t know this for sure from personal experience, I suspect that viewers of our work appreciate some continuity in vision.
Isn’t there a happy middle ground here? Many of the best photographers seem to have a definite, individual but hard to describe character to their work – maybe a preference for certain arrangements of subjects or mixtures of tone – but express that character in a wide and innovative variety of compositions and subjects.
And isn’t the same true of musicians? The tiresome repetitions of the second rate or the surprising but recognisable new ideas of the real talents?
Personally, I find consistency rather boring and constraining. I’d have to agree with Guy, I shoot what moves me at the moment. If it’s a ladybug, then that’s what I shoot. If it’s a grand landscape, then so be it!
Good post, Mark! Personally I don’t like limiting myself in the name of “style.” The only consistency in my work is that it portrays thing that move me.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” –Ralph Waldo Emerson
Guy