How important to you is consistency in aesthetic/look/feel/vibe...

[kxl]

... for a series of photos that are part of the same project or assignment or on holiday, etc...?

IF it's something for which you strive, what steps do you take? Same film? Same lens types (all modern, all vintage, etc...), same processing choices, etc...?

Just curious.

 

[p.giannakis]

For me, what is more important is how the final picture is close to what I had in mind when taking it. In that respect, pictures might not be consistent in terms of looks (i.e tonality, exposure, etc..) but might be similar in terms of theme.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

If I understand you correctly ... as long as there is some consistency in the subject matter - whatever that is - then having pics in B&W, color, artsy-fartsy, modern, sharp, soft focus, film, digital, or whatever, would seem fine by me.

 

[kxl]

If I understand you correctly ... as long as there is some consistency in the subject matter - whatever that is - then having pics in B&W, color, artsy-fartsy, modern, sharp, soft focus, film, digital, or whatever, would seem fine by me.

I'm thinking in terms of the kind of continuity of the aesthetic that a DP in cinema would try to achieve throughout an entire movie, e.g., the "JJ Abrams look"--a visual trademark of sorts--achieved through the use of flares, dynamic camera movement and positioning, etc... Is that concept pertinent in photography?

 

[Leon C]

Could be dependant on subject matter and content, I'm starting a longish term project in January that I will use mixed equipment but it will all be in B&W because it will suit the subject matter. I'll be using DSLR/MF 6x9/35mm Film and maybe a little Polaroid!

 

[Rayt]

I'm thinking in terms of the kind of continuity of the aesthetic that a DP in cinema would try to achieve throughout an entire movie, e.g., the "JJ Abrams look"--a visual trademark of sorts--achieved through the use of flares, dynamic camera movement and positioning, etc... Is that concept pertinent in photography?

You are referring to the Star Trek look? The Star Trek look is shiny, metallic, sanitary, high contrast, electric. The Star Wars look is the opposite: worn, dirty, rusty, organic. Apo Voigtlander vs uncoated Leitz optics? I get your point, when I did a Route 66 road trip I used a pinhole camera. Seemed appropriate.

 

[valdas]

I don’t do stories. It’s always an individual photo where I want to catch some light, emotion, mood etc. But, say, I take photos when on holiday, then I might see some consistency in my photos taken on that trip, but this consistency comes from the style of photography rather than from technical aspects. And by style I probably mean composition, type of subjects or objects, their relationship with the space, environment etc.

 

[kxl]

You are referring to the Star Trek look? The Star Trek look is shiny, metallic, sanitary, high contrast, electric. The Star Wars look is the opposite: worn, dirty, rusty, organic. Apo Voigtlander vs uncoated Leitz optics? I get your point, when I did a Route 66 road trip I used a pinhole camera. Seemed appropriate.

EXACTLY!

 

[kxl]

I don’t do stories. It’s always an individual photo where I want to catch some light, emotion, mood etc. But, say, I take photos when on holiday, then I might see some consistency in my photos taken on that trip, but this consistency comes from the style of photography rather than from technical aspects. And by style I probably mean composition, type of subjects or objects, their relationship with the space, environment etc.

That's fair... I do a bit of storytelling through a series of images for specific projects or when on holiday, and unless I'm trying to highlight a specific image, I'd be hard-pressed to insert an image from a 50s-60's lens when everything else in the series is shot with the latest APO ASPH lenses. Sometimes, I even go as far as to shoot the same or similar film (e.g., varieties of Kodak Vision3 film) for the entire series.

I was just wondering if anyone else did the same thing.

 

[agentlossing]

Great question! I've thought about it a lot; in the past, I've chased creative looks for individual photos, or shot with particular JPEG styles in-camera without any thought to the rest of my photographs. But I gradually grew dissatisfied with that. I think seeing my work on my Flickr photostream had something to do with that: the styles and colors clashed a lot. There was hi-contrast, grungy monochrome, faded color, actual color and B&W film stocks, what have you.

My "philosophy" (if you can call it that) has been that different digital cameras, and film stocks, have a particular "look" which is unique. Ricoh's Positive Film, Panasonic's Standard (from the Lumix GX80/85 onwards) and L Monochrome profiles, Pentax Satobi profile, etc. I think that's still true, and that even RAW files have specific looks, and I try to edit them to suit that look. But I've definitely edged more subtle with my edits.

The relatively uniform output with fewer variables was a big part of what drew me to the Pentax K-3 III Monochrome, too. B&W being the only option, which is something I've enjoyed shooting film as well.

 

[peterm1]

It is not very important to me, if at all. I usually find it best to let each photo "tell" me how it will look best. I always shoot digitally these days and that means I have lots of opportunity to post process images. Often, I find that two images of the same subject work better with different treatment - small differences in a specific image's composition, tonality, color, light, contrast can entice me to go down different paths with them. Especially because I am more of an artistic type not a documentary photographer, I am always looking for more interesting ways to represent an image. I will therefore often experiment and ultimately end up with a few different treatments of the same image and use them alternately at different times depending upon my mood other factors. Because I am an amateur not a professional churning out images for clients, fortunately I have the luxury of being able to follow my "star" in this respect.

 

[kxl]

Especially because I am more of an artistic type not a documentary photographer... fortunately I have the luxury of being able to follow my "star" in this respect.

Yes, excellent key points. I do consider myself more of a documentarian/story teller rather than an artist.

I don't consider myself a professional either (although I do have a contract with and submit images to a local wire service), so i also follow my own personal north star--only in my case, that north star happens to be documentaries.

 

[Archiver]

... for a series of photos that are part of the same project or assignment or on holiday, etc...?

IF it's something for which you strive, what steps do you take? Same film? Same lens types (all modern, all vintage, etc...), same processing choices, etc...?

For paid work, it's important to have the same look throughout. This applies to most areas of work like real estate, product photography, fashion, events etc. This is achieved with using the same lenses and matching colours across cameras when multiple are used.

For personal work like holidays, I don't really mind that much as I enjoy experimenting with different looks, although my work tends to have the same look overall because my taste is fairly invariable. It's funny because my personal work is where I get to experiment with new looks which find their way into paid work, because they have been tested where money is not a factor. And with personal work, I don't care as much about how things turn out, I just randomly take photos of anything.

As it is, I consider the Leica M9 to be my benchmark for colour and look, so I strive to get those colours out of everything I shoot, especially if it is significant or for public consumption.

 

[38Deardorff]

For me printing a series... the same paper, same developer.
Lens style, film, even print size don't enter into my plan.

 

[maigo]

I shoot my children’s sports - soccer, baseball, volleyball, track.
I shoot in manual shutter, manual aperture, auto-iso.
I find that the uniform and field colours can change depending on ISO, shadows and lighting.
I do adjust levels but only for consistency of the primary uniform colour and the foreground grass.
Given the audience (parents) I probably don’t have to go that far but I try to put my best work out there whether it’s a single great street shot on Flickr or 80 photos of a game dumped to Google Photos.

 

[kxl]

As it is, I consider the Leica M9 to be my benchmark for colour and look...

I recently got a line on a mint-condition M9 with a replacement CCD ID: 16 for a very good price, and man, it was tempting...

 

[Rick Waldroup]

I started a project in B&W, "Riding the Rails" back in 2012. I documented my daily and weekly trips by train throughout the Dallas / Fort Worth area. I specifically purchased a Ricoh GRDII for the project and over 90% of the photos were shot with that camera.

Recently, I resurrected an old project shooting the historical buildings in my hometown. For documentary reasons, the project was to be shot in color and I decided to do most of the project with an old Olympus E-1 with the Kodak CCD sensor, which is very much like shooting Kodachrome. Unfortunately, I have had to put that project on hold temporarily.

So, yes, I am a firm believer in using the right tools or cameras for the any type of vision for a project.

 

[trix4ever]

I tend to work on several projects at the same time, often over years if not decades.
I did a project on London at night with long exposures using my Linhof Technika, 90mm and fp4 for most of it. I have an ongoing project on Rockabilly culture and cars which I use my Leica M6, 28mm f1.9 Ultron and tri-x.
A recent project started with industrial architecture as a theme with my S1r and various PC lenses.
I make books for myself and as a portfolio and often print series for exhibitions which up until now have been done in my darkroom, which raises my bigger problem in that over the years several of my favourite papers have disappeared meaning I have to start again to create a consistent series.
I regularly go on road trips looking for more material, both for stock submissions and personal work. The personal work is almost entirely done using an M240, the stock which I have done for 20 years uses whatever digital camera I'm using at the time, but I find it easy to make any camera give my 'look' so for that I don't care what I started out with.
Sorry to waffle on but essentially yes. I work in projects and insist on continuity of image style.

 

[halvmesyr]

Got two Flickr accounts. One is all over the place with digital, 35mm and medium format. The second one is only photos taken with Sigma foveon cameras. Got the issue of too many cameras it seems. Wish I had the discipline to stick with one format for atleast an extended period.

 

[mrtoml]

Nowadays I tend to work on similar themes or long term projects (still life pears, still life tulips, seascapes, beach scenes etc.). I always try for a certain look. I have started experimenting with presets in Lightroom to get a similar look straight out of the raw file. 99% black and white. I also think about what the print will look like as part of a series before I start shooting.

The camera and lens is less important as with modern processing it is easy to get the look you want out of any modern digital camera unless you are using crazy wide angle lenses. I tend to just stick a 24-105 or 24-70 zoom on the camera, but have a wider angle and a longer telephoto zoom in the bag just in case. (With the medium format gear I have the 20-35 and 35-70. I sold my 100-200mm as it was just too big and heavy to lug around.)

Recently I started experimenting with alternative processes and the sort of images I take for this are different to those I would use with 'normal' digital printing.