Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Some people claim to recognize my work, but I think I'm a dime-a-dozen.
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
mary duprie wrote:
hey......i even noticed my work when a fellow mm'er was using 11 of my images on his site....including his main.....
i said.....hummmm....nice work this guy does.....i'll check him out.....
hey, to my surprise i gave myself a compliment.....go figure!!!
didn't recognize my early work!
but knew it had STYLE!
 haha, that is awesome!!
Photographer
SolraK Studios
Posts: 1213
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Christopher Bush wrote:
this is the whole point, and something that i think is often missed around here. there seems to be a culture of conformity here that ignores this fundamental test - a test that is easily satisfied by the favorite maligned shooters like terry or whoever. it took me years to develop a barely consistent style, and i'm still working at it everyday.
great thread idea, and i hope people pay close attention to it. Bravo Chris, well said. Thanx for sharing.
Photographer
Zanzim
Posts: 344
Jacksonville, Florida, US
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. I suppose we would have to all agree on what success really means. The probability of that happening is highly unlikely.
If it is true that monetery success and immediate recognition stems from an ability to shoot the current trend, then this type of success typically dies with the mortality of the creator.
Longevity I would argue comes to a select few who have a vision... one that is constantly morphing ahead of the trend, revitalizing the craft and pushing the limits beyond what is currently popular.
History has proven this. Those who have stayed true to their vision live in immortality, even after death, their work outliving, inspiring and sustaining generations of their heirs.
Model
Danella Lucioni
Posts: 535
Florence, Toscana, Italy
this is a great question.
i don't know how, but i look at some photos here on MM and i go, "i know exactly who shot that"
it is good, when the photo is great, of course.
other times i also love it when the photographer's styles are very different from one another.
Photographer
M_M_P
Posts: 3410
Seattle, Washington, US
Christopher Bush wrote:
distinctive and repetitive are not the same. don't fear your inclinations! Exactly what I was thinking. The challenge I always try to put on myself is to shoot something new each time. I also hope to create a sense of continuity from shoot to shoot.
I think a distinctive style is shown by each photographer's natural tendencies toward lighting. We all have our favorite modifiers and others that we know work, but don't interest us much. Additionally, personal habits in how you use your other gear that have been generated by time tested trial and error will also help create some consistency in the results because there are ways you like to do things, right or wrong. So while there may be a distinctiveness to one's work, there can also be something new created from this distinctive style.
Those that confuse repetitive for distinctive are the one's who will not succeed. It seems to me that clients rely on your distinctive style to achieve their goal or they won't hire you, you'd be considered a wild card. At the same time, if you are just repetitive, the client will feel like they are going to get the same cookie cutter shots you did last time. Your distinctive style is what gets you hired over the next guy (or gal) and if you don't have a shred of continuity, how can you sell your skills?
Photographer
Jim Ball
Posts: 17632
Frontenac, Kansas, US
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
t l province wrote:
I would have to say the same about my own work, or so I've been told. This isn't meant to be a slam, just an observation. I went to your online folio to check the validity of your statement and I found a variety of pictures that look like 14 different guys took them. The only distinctively common thing they shared was the name across the bottom of the images, and even that wasn't used consistently.
Don't feel bad because there are only a handful of photographers on this site that have distinctive styles and some of those are borrowed from other more notorious shooters. It's a hard thing to come up with a distinctive style and you will only find it from within your own heart.
Photographer
Tog
Posts: 55204
Birmingham, Alabama, US
Lemme learn how before you try and nail me down to what.
Photographer
Michael Donovan
Posts: 1678
Chicago, Illinois, US
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. Good question! I'm still evolving... so "No, you wouldn't be able to tell."
Photographer
Doug Lester
Posts: 10591
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Depends. Depends on the type and style of the collection; on the venue of the collection; on the viewer and so forth. There just is no black and white (no pun intended) answer to this. If an image is truely 'distinctive', then it wil stand out any place it is shown.
Photographer
Stacy Leigh
Posts: 3064
New York, New York, US
I think part of becoming a successful photographer is having a recognizable style, I can almost always pick out a Rankin photograph....
I am working hard at developing my own style, and aspire to one day get there. I also want to be able to do it all- and fashion photography is proving to be rather difficult.
someday......
Photographer
Michael Donovan
Posts: 1678
Chicago, Illinois, US
Bob Randall Photography wrote:
This isn't meant to be a slam, just an observation. I went to your online folio to check the validity of your statement and I found a variety of pictures that look like 14 different guys took them. The only distinctively common thing they shared was the name across the bottom of the images, and even that wasn't used consistently.
Don't feel bad because there are only a handful of photographers on this site that have distinctive styles and some of those are borrowed from other more notorious shooters. It's a hard thing to come up with a distinctive style and you will only find it from within your own heart. I'm following my heart.... when do I get my style?!
Photographer
ClarObscur
Posts: 186
Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
for me, the style is connected with a particular moment in time (think Picasso, think blue period).. I guess at this particular moment my style is easily recognoscible, or at least that's what I am told...
Photographer
Stacy Leigh
Posts: 3064
New York, New York, US
W.G. Rowland wrote:
Lemme learn how before you try and nail me down to what. oh please.
(rolling my eyes)
You are so talented, you could give lectures on photography at the Annex.
Photographer
Benjamin Louis
Posts: 160
Grand Rapids, Michigan, US
you could tell who was better i think, ive recently shot a few models on here and the quality ive given them is a dif of night and day (me being the better of course)
Photographer
Kevin Stenhouse
Posts: 2660
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Mine? Not at all, and right now on my journey I don't care. I'm like a kid in a candy store with $2.00... it'll be awhile before I buy into anything... to much to try, see, do and steal. Another couple of years I'll likely start seeing a trend. Until then, as said above... following my heart.
Digital Artist
Koray
Posts: 6720
Ankara, Ankara, Turkey
when you see my stuff you'll know its not from someone that you know 
Photographer
Mez Media Group
Posts: 173
ALDIE, Virginia, US
your work is very distinctive!
Photographer
Michael Donovan
Posts: 1678
Chicago, Illinois, US
Benjamin Louis wrote:
you could tell who was better i think, ive recently shot a few models on here and the quality ive given them is a dif of night and day (me being the better of course) That has nothing to do with style.
Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 36555
San Diego, California, US
Christopher Hartman wrote:
Some people claim to recognize my work, but I think I'm a dime-a-dozen. You are CERTAINLY NOT a dime a dozen. You are the leading expert in sunset beach photos with stunningly beautiful women.
Nobody does it better.
Photographer
James Andrew Imagery
Posts: 6713
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
I've been told by a few people in the biz (photo editors) that a distinctive style is a very, very good thing. Editors will remember your style and when something comes along that suits it, your name hits the top of the list. The response to that of course is that its a negative as it only makes you eligable for one type of work. But in the real world apparently if you aren't standing out then you haven't a chance anyways. My own style - I don't think its distinctive, unfortunately. 
Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 36555
San Diego, California, US
Jim Ball wrote:
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? If you know who Click Hamilton is, it's not difficult to recognize which photos are Click Hamilton photos ;-)
(he's the one on the left)
![https://www.pbase.com/click_hamilton/image/80394812.jpg]()
Wealth Springs Eternal
On the other hand, if nobody has heard of us, then why should they recognize our work?
That's just ego and vanity.
Photographer
Michael R Kihn Studios
Posts: 2559
Erie, Pennsylvania, US
I think when people can recognize your style you being too repetitive in your work.
I alway strive to do better which to me means don;t have my work have the same style
If others would see my work on other website they would see that I refuse to have a identifiable style
my opinion only
Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 36555
San Diego, California, US
Jim Ball wrote:
Playing devil's advocate here: If one adopted a style "too distinctive" could it not be a negative? Of course.
If you are a professional photographer, hired for your skill for presenting products in a way that sells, I think most customers would be pissed if you made photos of their products and wrapped it all around you as an extension of your self promotion and celebrity.
The question that addresses all these responses is "what's the purpose?"
Are you promoting yourself, or are you promoting someone else?
If you are promoting yourself, then you should be distinctive and recognizable. You should develope your name brand recognition, your style, your intellectual property rights, and your position in the market relative to your competitors.
If you are hired to shoot a wedding or to make a kick ass ad for someone's product, then you better leave your own identity out of it, and concentrate on selling the customers product rather than yourself.
If I did a wedding, then Click Hamilton would be in the background of every wedding photo .. dancing, ... serving food, ... delivering the bride, ... sweeping the floor, ... etc.
Photographer
Webspinner Studios
Posts: 6964
Ann Arbor, Michigan, US
Nick Zantop wrote:
www.grayscott.com Well, I bookmarked him. this guy is fantastic....
Photographer
Webspinner Studios
Posts: 6964
Ann Arbor, Michigan, US
Well Click, there was this one photo OF you not BY you that confused me on W.G.'s port...I didn't know you even existed until then.
Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 36555
San Diego, California, US
Jim Ball wrote:
The artist H. R. Geiger. http://www.hrgiger.com/ No matter the subject, it is instantly recognizeable as Geiger because of certain elements common to & repeated in every painting. Hey, I've seen work like that before without the name!
It's a genre now, and I'm not sure H.R. Geiger had anything to do with starting it.
Photographer
John Van
Posts: 3122
Vienna, Wien, Austria
Not at all. Maybe some day it will be, but I'm still learning...slowly.
Then again, as I just wrote in another thread, I don't think that many, if any, photographers are truly unique in their style. They might have limited their subject matter, in which case that becomes somewhat of a distinguishing feature.
Photographer
GDS Photos
Posts: 3399
London, England, United Kingdom
Click Hamilton wrote:
Hey, I've seen work like that before without the name!
It's a genre now, and I'm not sure H.R. Geiger had anything to do with starting it. If he's the guy that did the ELP Brain Salad Surgery Album cover, he either started it or made it his own.
I guess I would need to get more consistent results to develop a style.
Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 36555
San Diego, California, US
W.G. Rowland wrote:
Lemme learn how before you try and nail me down to what. Stacy Leigh wrote:
oh please.
(rolling my eyes)
You are so talented, you could give lectures on photography at the Annex. Hahaha ... anyone can sign up to teach any subject at the Annex
Photographer
Ben Harrison
Posts: 310
Mountain View, California, US
I'm still trying to figure out what I'm best at, so right now my portfolio is a real hodge podge.
Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 36555
San Diego, California, US
Webspinner wrote:
Well Click, there was this one photo OF you not BY you that confused me on W.G.'s port...I didn't know you even existed until then. That's probably because WG has 17 bazillion posts at MM, and I only have two thousand something.
WG and I have had many long and tormented discussions about this
At first, he wanted to do Click photos, Click style. I keep kicking his butt to do his own style of Click, rather than Click's style of Click.
He may not admit it in public, but WG and I are pretty close friends.
Photographer
Tog
Posts: 55204
Birmingham, Alabama, US
Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 36555
San Diego, California, US
AND .. when WG doesn't sign his own photos of Click Hamilton, it gets even more confusing (I think he posts that nude picture of me everytime I annoy him)
Photographer
Tog
Posts: 55204
Birmingham, Alabama, US
Click Hamilton wrote:
AND .. when WG doesn't sign his own photos of Click Hamilton, it gets even more confusing
(I think he posts that nude picture of me everytime I annoy him) ![https://www.pbase.com/wgrowland/image/80546114.jpg]()
Photographer
Monica -
Posts: 2
Los Angeles, California, US
as long as you're happy with your work and the client is happy, i don't think it matters much. maybe i'm just too easily satisfied.
Photographer
Victoria Wong
Posts: 88
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Establish a distinctive photographic style has always been something that I've been trying to achieve in the recent years. I think I've done it, and I think my style is pretty consistent. I hope you feel the same about my portfolio too.
Photographer
MannyDesalamanca
Posts: 2076
Orlando, Florida, US
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. Very Easy......![https://img8.modelmayhem.com/070615/00/467214816d192_m.jpg]()
Photographer
Jim Ball
Posts: 17632
Frontenac, Kansas, US
Click Hamilton wrote:
Of course.
If you are a professional photographer, hired for your skill for presenting products in a way that sells, I think most customers would be pissed if you made photos of their products and wrapped it all around you as an extension of your self promotion and celebrity.
The question that addresses all these responses is "what's the purpose?"
Are you promoting yourself, or are you promoting someone else?
If you are promoting yourself, then you should be distinctive and recognizable. You should develope your name brand recognition, your style, your intellectual property rights, and your position in the market relative to your competitors.
If you are hired to shoot a wedding or to make a kick ass ad for someone's product, then you better leave your own identity out of it, and concentrate on selling the customers product rather than yourself.
If I did a wedding, then Click Hamilton would be in the background of every wedding photo .. dancing, ... serving food, ... delivering the bride, ... sweeping the floor, ... etc. A Click Hamilton wedding shoot! DO IT!
The key is in what you said above: What's the purpose? The photographers I think of with the truly distinctive stand-out, in-your-face styles are usually in it for the artistic expression and less so, or not at all for the money.
|
