Jim Ball wrote:

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.

plz click go for it
tb

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.

Michael Donovan wrote:
I'm following my heart.... when do I get my style?!

Settle down... you've been at this a year.

I was just reading some of the posts in the Jessalyn thread (which has turned into another popularity contest yet again) and I stumbled upon a dunce or two that listed Steiglitz and Steichen as having distinctive styles. A few more idiots chimed in and pretty soon they all agreed they know what they're talking about. This is what is making me crazy in here. So much bull spit and so very little knowledge. Go to the photography department at the Art Institute of Chicago and ask the curator to put out a random selection of Steichen's work (they have the largest collection of his work in the world according to the curator). Bring a friend along that has very little knowledge of or interest in photography. Ask her to see if she can tell how many of the images were made by the same guy. She may be able to pick two or three that have enough characteristic traits to make them appear to come from a single source. You will be amazed at how diverse and eclectic the body of work is and how dissimilar it all looks. Portraits on Platinum, city scapes in the snow on gum over Kalitype, night scenes of moon lit parks on gum over cyanotype with emulsion so thick it looks like Van Gogh was in the house. The guy was a pioneer and considered good for his time, but he did not have a distinctive style. He shot whatever paid the bills or moved him at the moment.

Joel Peter Witkin has a distinctive style as does Les Crims. Their content and interests have changed little over the years and collectors love them (that is if Les is still alive). Marcus Klinko and Indrani have a distinctive style and if they don't change it up pretty soon they may find themselves out of a gig because their work is beginning to look dated and their bread and butter is commercial print which requires new blood every five minutes. Just ask Aaron Jones how capricious a style is in the commercial market place.

While Michael Rosen had a distinctive style, but there are so many pretenders to that throne it's hard to tell a Rosen from a Chris Chlor. How many of you guys have started threads or participated in them to find out Jim Fiscus' technique so you could copy him. There are a few guys on here that have done a real good job of copying him, and if you didn't see their names with the file you couldn't tell the difference between the pretender and the real thing. Is that now a singular style or mass produced rippoff.

There are photographers that I know that won't look at other photographers work because they don't want to be influenced by what they see. They want their particular visions to remain pure and come from their heart and not their heads. When you can generate your images from what your heart tells you to do you may have a chance at a unique style.

No guarantees!

RCPublishing wrote:
I think that my style if fairly distinctive... similarities in subject matter/types of location contribute to that also. Would be interested to know if others feel that way about my work too. Very interesting question...

You asked for this...

You take naked girls out somewhere convenient to your your house and you point your camera at them and press the shutter, completely unaware of what the natural light you are using is doing to them. Naked is not a style, it is a condition. Wooded areas are just locations and your poses are no different than thousands of other I see here all day long. It's pretty obvious you have no personal esthetic, you just like naked girls. So do I, but it ain't a style.

And just to be fair to you, 99.999% of the people here on MM that have stated they think they have a style are in your company. They have no style what so ever.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:

Settle down... you've been at this a year.

I was just reading some of the posts in the Jessalyn thread (which has turned into another popularity contest yet again) and I stumbled upon a dunce or two that listed Steiglitz and Steichen as having distinctive styles. A few more idiots chimed in and pretty soon they all agreed they know what they're talking about. This is what is making me crazy in here. So much bull spit and so very little knowledge. Go to the photography department at the Art Institute of Chicago and ask the curator to put out a random selection of Steichen's work (they have the largest collection of his work in the world according to the curator). Bring a friend along that has very little knowledge of or interest in photography. Ask her to see if she can tell how many of the images were made by the same guy. She may be able to pick two or three that have enough characteristic traits to make them appear to come from a single source. You will be amazed at how diverse and eclectic the body of work is and how dissimilar it all looks. Portraits on Platinum, city scapes in the snow on gum over Kalitype, night scenes of moon lit parks on gum over cyanotype with emulsion so thick it looks like Van Gogh was in the house. The guy was a pioneer and considered good for his time, but he did not have a distinctive style. He shot whatever paid the bills or moved him at the moment.

Joel Peter Witkin has a distinctive style as does Les Crims. Their content and interests have changed little over the years and collectors love them (that is if Les is still alive). Marcus Klinko and Indrani have a distinctive style and if they don't change it up pretty soon they may find themselves out of a gig because their work is beginning to look dated and their bread and butter is commercial print which requires new blood every five minutes. Just ask Aaron Jones how capricious a style is in the commercial market place.

While Michael Rosen had a distinctive style, but there are so many pretenders to that throne it's hard to tell a Rosen from a Chris Chlor. How many of you guys have started threads or participated in them to find out Jim Fiscus' technique so you could copy him. There are a few guys on here that have done a real good job of copying him, and if you didn't see their names with the file you couldn't tell the difference between the pretender and the real thing. Is that now a singular style or mass produced rippoff.

There are photographers that I know that won't look at other photographers work because they don't want to be influenced by what they see. They want their particular visions to remain pure and come from their heart and not their heads. When you can generate your images from what your heart tells you to do you may have a chance at a unique style.

No guarantees!

wow. poignant.