Ransom-The Cheese-J wrote:
i dunno, I've been told that my style is recognizable though.

Just moving Ransom over here since I accidentally double posted.

Nick Zantop wrote:
for some, their success stems from having a distinctive style.

for others, their success comes from being able to shoot in any style.

exactly :p

but no I don't have a distinctive style.

KARLOS MATTHEWS wrote:

exactly :p

but no I don't have a distinctive style.

unless just being a very good photographer is a style, and then you have mastered the style.

as for myself, I don't really know - my work is always evolving.

Jim Ball wrote:
Playing devil's advocate here: If one adopted a style "too distinctive" could it not be a negative?

could be - but I would say probably not. Being known for something is not entirely bad...unless of course you decide later that you don't wish to be known for that anymore.

for example - Gray Scott has a very distinctive shooting style. His work is usually instantly recognizable. In his case, I would consider that a plus.

www.grayscott.com

Jim Ball wrote:
Playing devil's advocate here: If one adopted a style "too distinctive" could it not be a negative?

distinctive and repetitive are not the same.  don't fear your inclinations!

Ransom-The Cheese-J wrote:
i dunno, I've been told that my style is recognizable though.

It is. As soon as I see "baby got back" with some warm baby oil...I KNOW it's you

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

It is. As soon as I see "baby got back" with some warm baby oil...I KNOW it's you

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

that's the subject, not the style, you're noticing.

Jim Ball wrote:
Playing devil's advocate here: If one adopted a style "too distinctive" could it not be a negative?

Depends on your goals.  If you want to get hired for every photo job that comes along, then shooting exactly what an AD wants, the way she wants it, is best.  If you are doing it for yourself and you really know what you like, then it should be distinctive just naturally.

The third category, the rare one, is having a style that is so clearly your own that people pay you for it specifically, and are disappointed when it doesn't appear.

-Don

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
I think those who know my work wouldn't often mistake it for anyone else's work.  I could be wrong though.

-Don

I would have to say the same about my own work, or so I've been told.

WS Studio wrote:
I'm still growing, and never want to be classified.

in an industry where name recognition is key, would being classified be bad necessarily?

I'm not sure that I have an opinion either way - just curious.

Terra Dawn Photography wrote:
That's kind of a hard question to answer, I think.  I mean...I think I have a pretty distinctive style.  I would recognize my own images in a group of 90.    I guess other people would be better qualified to answer that, from my perspective. 

Terra

I would hope you would recognize your own images!!

Chris Macan wrote:
I have some work in a style that is pretty clearly mine,
And I have some work that is clearly different than most.

But nobody’s work is really truly unique,
Not now and not even in the time of VanGogh, Cézanne or Gauguan.
We recognize them as unique now because they are Brands,
Because they are the best of their style of their era.

People who know my work will guess that things are mine,
But they can never know for sure without confirmation.

I wasn't talking about unique, but distinctive.  The meaning is a little different.  By distinctive, I mean deliberate style elements that are very noticable and common to every image you produce.  So far, no one here has a portfolio like that.  There are some great portfolios, but nothing like I'm thinking.

Nick Zantop wrote:

I would hope you would recognize your own images!!

That would be funny.  "Why yes...come into the gallery and see my work!!  Let me know which pieces are mine!!"

Jim Ball wrote:
How distinctive should it be?

If a random sampling of 10 of your images with 10 different models  were hung on a wall with 90 other images from various other photographers, how easy would it be for others to pick out your 10 images, even if they didn't know who you were? Should it be easy?

For example:  The Impressionist painter Van Gogh's later work is very distinctive and does not resemble any other artist from his period.

How important is a distinctive style or look to your work?

For clarification, I'm not talking sameness of subject matter here.

Look at our port. Everything is totally different from the other! We can shoot pretty much any style we put our mind to.

Jerry Coleman  wrote:
My favorite photographers ....Erick Blair......glamour.   Persona Studios.....high fashion.   Eyeworks.....themed and fantasy.  (these are their MM names).  Each has a style that I can spot their work immediately in a group of images. 

I am only a year into photography so I don't think I have developed a real style yet, although I think it is different, but not distinctive.

That's what I'm talking about.  Work so distinctive that others recognize it immediately, even if they do not know the artist.  "Hey, isn't that by whatzisname?"

Nick Zantop wrote:
for some, their success stems from having a distinctive style.

for others, their success comes from being able to shoot in any style.

He said it so perfectly, I might as well quote him.

Jim Ball wrote:
How distinctive should it be?

If a random sampling of 10 of your images with 10 different models  were hung on a wall with 90 other images from various other photographers, how easy would it be for others to pick out your 10 images, even if they didn't know who you were? Should it be easy?

For example:  The Impressionist painter Van Gogh's later work is very distinctive and does not resemble any other artist from his period.

How important is a distinctive style or look to your work?

For clarification, I'm not talking sameness of subject matter here.

I think my work is pretty distinctive...let me know what you think...