Quixdraw Loc: x

Sat down just now after spending time and thought on a completely different task. My brain was not tuned in on photography. As usual, flashed through a couple of pages of newest photos. Happenstance I recognized a few things I do nearly automatically in some others photos. Random idea crossed my mind. I'm not speaking so much of context, or genre, but more, wondering if there aren't shared visual "languages" popular at certain periods in time which we retain, almost like a Tat from younger days. What do you think?

krashdragon

Hood question
Probably. Depending on environment and ?

Iron Sight Loc: Utah

Are you pertaining to subjects familiar to you but cannot find a language to express?

Quixdraw Loc: x

No, in re: language, I feel reasonably fluent, both by education and work experience. Simply interested to find out if others have ever had a similar "satori". Iron sights are good for most things, others...not so much.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

If i understand correctly, you are thinking of certain words or meanings that can pin the user to a timestamp in their career?

Perhaps like these?
1. Brownie - would most used words in around 1910-40's?
2. 35mm SLR- around mid 1960's -80's?
3. Beta is definitely 80's
4. RAW - around 2000's
5. Pop- 2010ish...?

Or is it something deeper?

R.G. Loc: Scotland

The visual language you refer to presumably shows itself in things like composition. One thing I would notice is how much consideration and planning went into things like foreground, line of sight, framing and that sort of thing. Casual observers probably don't notice these things much but it's what some photographers identify as being the sort of thing that can lift a photo up a level or two.

Film photography teaches you to be careful with every shot and if that's your background it'll be natural for you to think carefully about composition. On the other hand, quick and easy phone photography probably encourages another type of mentality and people coming from that kind of background probably have to make a more conscious effort to learn about the planning aspects of image capture.

ELNikkor

I probably have fewer and lower res files as a result of a latent conservative approach acquired due growing up with, and many years having, only 36 expensive exposures in the camera at a time. Rarely do I ever use "spray and pray" shooting. Only use RAW when there are serious exposure extremes and the subject has the possibility of being marketable. As for the influential photographers at the time I was developing (no pun intended!) a style, those contemporaries who influenced me would have been Ansel Adams for the range of light, David Hume Kennerly for a journalistic style, Nat. Geo. and Norman (NOT Ken!) Rockwell for including only essential elements throughout the frame.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I think it’s a very interesting question and I am sure the answer is “yes”. Not only in retouching skill, but also in camera skills and composition skills.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Words, certainly would be a clue, I was thinking more of styles and possibly operating habits.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Both RG and El Nikkor have come up with some ideas that resonate for me. Composition, deliberation, line of sight, framing. Economy of exposure because of lengthy film experience - the uncountable times I have shot less than 36 exposures because of old habit. Not using burst, because you want the precise moment or nothing. Considering whether or not to take a picture. Mention of the influencers, Adams, Norman Rockwell certainly, though not a photographer. Thanks to both of you for filling in some blanks.

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

Quixdraw, a quite interesting and quite complex question. Photography is visual art so discounting subject matter and the genre its creation is unique to the individual creating it. There are many reasons with one being whether a person is right or left-brain dominant. Another is that each of us "sees" things, like color, just a bit differently than someone else for it is how our brains process and determine it. I'm sure that anyone who is married perhaps can relate to that.

With today's ability to post-process, the "art" can be shifted more toward the human influence than that of the processing of the digital camera. Of course, this too is influenced by several factors such as to monitor color calibration, brightness intensity of the monitor, ambient light, tilt angle of the monitor with relation to the line of sight of the viewer, and the use of filters, AI autoprocessing, choice of software used, and on and on. We are 'creatures of habit' and we tend to do the same things over and over in the same ways.

I suspect that if we were to view someone's volume of work over the years we could tell how they progressed and when they 'got into their groove' that one can use to help identity who's work it is and when in their career it may have been taken.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Excellent and thoughtful observations! In regard to the last paragraph, I think that there are also examples to be found in old work that are seminal and reoccur across time. It would be interesting for me to revisit England and follow the itinerary I did 40 odd years ago, take photos and compare new images with old slides. Hopefully I would see differences and improvements. Slides, of course are much less flexible than digital media.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

To your initial title question of "Can you guess when a photographer began by photographic style?"

Perhaps. For me, Zone System - predigital era. Pentax (film) cameras - 1970s. Naturalistic - minimal processing - Black & White - predigital. Words used such as lens and never lenses. Interchange (correctly or incorrectly) light meter for exposure meter. Favorite photographers: Edward Weston, Brett Weston, Ansel Adams. I also like many old masters and some contemporary photographs. But even most of those are in a AA reality in B & W or IR.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

Back in my film days there was an emphasis on "framing" your photograph. Find something (usually a tree branch with leaves) to act as a frame for the subject. I've read (and heard) a number of digital gurus who've said not to include branches as frames. I still do it when I can. Today the mantra is "find an interesting foreground element that will lead your eye into the photograph." I don't know how to find an interesting foreground element if it's not present! But a leafy tree, now there's something I can relate to!

Quixdraw Loc: x