tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Love the initial question, but really, it's pretty much impossible to answer.
To be more than just a guy with a camera, you need to produce images that connect with the viewer in some way. But every viewer is looking for something different. Trash to me could be art to you. Your abstract interpretation of a scene may be nothing more than an out-of-focus mistake to me.
I do a lot of work with models from the Model Mayhem site. Looking through their portfolios, I'm amazed at the number of photos that are just awful - in my opinion. But obviously, those models believe those images to be good, or they wouldn't put them in their portfolio.
To be more than just a guy with a camera, you need to produce images that connect with the viewer in some way. But every viewer is looking for something different. Trash to me could be art to you. Your abstract interpretation of a scene may be nothing more than an out-of-focus mistake to me.
I do a lot of work with models from the Model Mayhem site. Looking through their portfolios, I'm amazed at the number of photos that are just awful - in my opinion. But obviously, those models believe those images to be good, or they wouldn't put them in their portfolio.
NathanJD
Well-known
I’m very pleased with the thought provoking influence of this thread and i love all of your answers 
there’s been a lot of talk about how a photograph is subjective etc... and about how a photographer must have something to say and whatnot.
On the subject of having something to say i would put forward the premise that as photographers what we are actually often doing is trying to represent what someone or some situation is saying. in that sense yes we do the same as artists when we produce an image because we present information in a non-direct way and ask “what does this image mean to you?” - doesn’t matter what your style is really, whether your image is blatantly obvious, subtle, garish, a study, understated or whatever; it is at the end of the day a presentation of information - an attempt to communicate without words and sometimes the words are yours, sometimes they are someone else’s - sometimes simple, sometimes complex.
This thread is not a dig at those without experience or an exercise in bigheadedness because it is not to say that those without a style of photography are not worthy or somehow lacking in any way other than there is for sure, you must agree, a moment when we as photographers metamorphosis, no?
Some here on this site have and others haven’t and for all it’s an ongoing development (as a collective, we more than most should know about developing right? )
On the much posed question of what a photographic style actually is - i would say it’s parts of a formula that appears a lot in someone’s work in the way that you may recognize a band, composer, painter AND photographer by his work without knowing before hand who produced the piece of art in question. have you ever heard something on the radio and said “isn't that <insert band name/composer>?” only to be told “yes, it’s their new song/a rare piece” etc... looked at a painting or photograph and thought “that looks like a <insert photographer/painter>" only to find out it is?
Dia know what that is? that’s a style.
When something becomes popular in art it becomes copied and anyone who takes inspiration from those sources will find it hard to stand out because the market becomes saturated. how many of you oldies have found yourself saying “there’s nothing new in music these days, all these bands are just recycling stuff from my time”, who in turn were recycling stuff from before your time - after all - rock and roll was the son of blues born in the cotton fields of the delta in the 1920’s and 30’s popularized in Britain and then sold back to america in the 60’s. how many bands covered Crossroads by Robert Johnson recorded in 1936-1937 only to repackage it and present it to a world decades after Johnson’s death
Point being that i’m not so much asking whether it’s possible to be a ground breaking pioneer of photography these days because that’s the reserve of those few giants among men like HCB, Hendrix, Van Gogh, Mozart etc... but original or not, is the restriction of the automation in the equipment used today a kin to a massively over simplified metaphor such as photography’s answer to paint by numbers?
there’s been a lot of talk about how a photograph is subjective etc... and about how a photographer must have something to say and whatnot.On the subject of having something to say i would put forward the premise that as photographers what we are actually often doing is trying to represent what someone or some situation is saying. in that sense yes we do the same as artists when we produce an image because we present information in a non-direct way and ask “what does this image mean to you?” - doesn’t matter what your style is really, whether your image is blatantly obvious, subtle, garish, a study, understated or whatever; it is at the end of the day a presentation of information - an attempt to communicate without words and sometimes the words are yours, sometimes they are someone else’s - sometimes simple, sometimes complex.
This thread is not a dig at those without experience or an exercise in bigheadedness because it is not to say that those without a style of photography are not worthy or somehow lacking in any way other than there is for sure, you must agree, a moment when we as photographers metamorphosis, no?
Some here on this site have and others haven’t and for all it’s an ongoing development (as a collective, we more than most should know about developing right?
)On the much posed question of what a photographic style actually is - i would say it’s parts of a formula that appears a lot in someone’s work in the way that you may recognize a band, composer, painter AND photographer by his work without knowing before hand who produced the piece of art in question. have you ever heard something on the radio and said “isn't that <insert band name/composer>?” only to be told “yes, it’s their new song/a rare piece” etc... looked at a painting or photograph and thought “that looks like a <insert photographer/painter>" only to find out it is?
Dia know what that is? that’s a style.
When something becomes popular in art it becomes copied and anyone who takes inspiration from those sources will find it hard to stand out because the market becomes saturated. how many of you oldies have found yourself saying “there’s nothing new in music these days, all these bands are just recycling stuff from my time”, who in turn were recycling stuff from before your time - after all - rock and roll was the son of blues born in the cotton fields of the delta in the 1920’s and 30’s popularized in Britain and then sold back to america in the 60’s. how many bands covered Crossroads by Robert Johnson recorded in 1936-1937 only to repackage it and present it to a world decades after Johnson’s death
Point being that i’m not so much asking whether it’s possible to be a ground breaking pioneer of photography these days because that’s the reserve of those few giants among men like HCB, Hendrix, Van Gogh, Mozart etc... but original or not, is the restriction of the automation in the equipment used today a kin to a massively over simplified metaphor such as photography’s answer to paint by numbers?
Last edited:
DNG
Film Friendly
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Just do it is my mantra.
pawel glogowski
Member
What makes a photographer? Certainly not style. Style is something that only a couple of photogs really have.
Well, if You browse flickr You will find that some people have images that look alike. That's not necessarily a style. Style is more than using one specific aperture value, the same composition all the time, or using special postproduction tricks. I believe that photographic style is a unique way of seeing or telling the story rather than way of presenting images.
But among people "style" probably means if You are bit different or recognized. That's not worth anything, just like money factor - there are many amateurs that do way better stuff than professionals.
Well, if You browse flickr You will find that some people have images that look alike. That's not necessarily a style. Style is more than using one specific aperture value, the same composition all the time, or using special postproduction tricks. I believe that photographic style is a unique way of seeing or telling the story rather than way of presenting images.
But among people "style" probably means if You are bit different or recognized. That's not worth anything, just like money factor - there are many amateurs that do way better stuff than professionals.
NathanJD
Well-known
As a GWC, I am deeply and severely hurt by this thread
Hah! Mike - you couldn't be more further! from your blog you seem to have found and work very comfortably within your style - the photos in your blog flow in a way that they all seem to belong together, from the processing to the way you pose your models even the look of your models seem to follow a close pattern.
and very pleasing your work is too excellent!those looking for some example of what i mean by photographic style should check Mike's blog out... check it out anyway it's wey cool
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Well, if and when we'd stick on the 'nomenclature' a photographer is someone who spends most of his time taking photographs and derives the bulk of his income from doing so. Equally, when we call someone a 'surgeon' 'we'd suppose that he spends a lot of time doing surgeries. Furthermore, amateur photo-enthusiasts like myself can never be 'photographers' since we spend most of our time, energy and creativity on other things.
antiquark
Derek Ross
To quote somebody else:
"When you buy a piano, you're a piano owner. When you buy a camera, you're a photographer."
"When you buy a piano, you're a piano owner. When you buy a camera, you're a photographer."
NathanJD
Well-known
yes - what you shoot needn't be popular to be 'you'. my photos sure ain't popular! i don't think i've ever had more than a real handful of comments to any of my pics and i have boobs in some of my pics! that's usually enough to rattle some comments out of the general public!
let's not get tied down by semantics - when i say style i mean the things that make your photographs yours.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
This would mean Van Gogh wasnt a painter because he never derived the bulk of his income from his paintings. He sold a few paintings to his brother; that's about it.
NathanJD
Well-known
Is no one allowed a Violon d'Ingres?
hitmanh
dum de dum de doo
I don't really understand this statement... you seem to be equating photography to be some kind of profession? I wouldn't agree with that. While you can be a professional photographer I'm not aware of anyone that has said an income of some kind is required to be a photographer.
Photography is a set of skills that allow you to take pictures, a style is a signature of your particular quirks and tastes in the mechanics of taking a picture.
bene
Established
A photographer wrote in his blurb photobook Paraphrased
"I dream about photographs and gear (such a sin). I studied art history both western and asian. I research on fellow photographers and painters. My best friends and muses are painters. I'm competing with the dead."
His photos did not impress me thats why i don't remember his name ...
"I dream about photographs and gear (such a sin). I studied art history both western and asian. I research on fellow photographers and painters. My best friends and muses are painters. I'm competing with the dead."
His photos did not impress me thats why i don't remember his name ...
Timbuktu
Newbie
Kudos on the thread.
I feel anyone who picks up a camera is a photographer, but only those who place their heart into mastering their kraft will be a photograher. It seems like everyone has a expensive slr around their neck nowadays...nothing wrong with this at all..we're all free to explore different forms of expressions but only a few will find what that expression is.
I feel anyone who picks up a camera is a photographer, but only those who place their heart into mastering their kraft will be a photograher. It seems like everyone has a expensive slr around their neck nowadays...nothing wrong with this at all..we're all free to explore different forms of expressions but only a few will find what that expression is.
Last edited:
Filson Back
Established
This might be heresy but I think that more good photography is being done now than ever before. Just go look at work people are doing on flickr. You can flip through forums on street photography and find things HCB, Winogrand, or Frank would have been proud of. That said--the people who took those great shots don't always have great portfolios or work overall. They either got lucky or were really on one day.
So I guess what makes one a "real" photographer is the ability to consistently achieve great shots in whatever genre you choose or get paid to do. Great being highly subjective of course.
So I guess what makes one a "real" photographer is the ability to consistently achieve great shots in whatever genre you choose or get paid to do. Great being highly subjective of course.
DNG
Film Friendly
I think your general conclusion is somewhat right. I may add, as we get better, our ability to "get the money shot" gets better... over time, if we persevere, we can achieve photographic nirvana
In our own eyes of course, being highly subjective.
porktaco
Well-known
epic, epic win
you put yourself in the right place, trust your eye and gear, and VIOLA, magic happens