Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

My own compass is weird. Coming from a technical & an artistic background I tend to breakdown complexities into simpler bits and I naturally see how (even scattered) bits n pieces relate and fit together. Hence, when I see something that interest me, I naturally break it down in my head to understand how it was created, or what would I do to duplicate it.
I could easily imagine and construct in my mind what can be created with stuffs around me and sometimes even predict a possible outcome by their arrangement and relationships.

But it is not fun at all. I seldom enjoy a magic trick and usually get disappointed with people, seeing through their white lies.

In photography, the same capacity makes me critical of my own and others works. It makes me hungry for getting things right and this is often frustrating. It also means I do not have set style. I would readily change my approach to what is needed for the intended outcome.

When I work, I often get into the zone and forget to even drink, pee or eat. Its not healthy so I often use alarms to remind me of the passing time.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Some photographers shoot with the intent to produce images which imitate what most other photographers are doing. And some photographers try to shoot images that are truly unique - very much the opposite of imitation.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

The larger subject here is composition and framing is one of the tools of composition.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Wow that is really intense!! I “get into the zone” too but I have have never ever forgotten to pee!

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

Interesting question. I look at others work for that very thing-a consistent thread that runs through all images. Style is what I call it.

DLRogers Loc: NY Fingerlakes

When I first saw the question, I thought 'no, probably first equipment would be a better indicator.' Then I realized that my first camera was a Boy Scouts 620 film camera with fixed everything. Put in the film and just shoot. But then my Mom gave me her Kodak fold out bellows camera in 616, with adjustable aperture and shutter speed, circa 1930's. So, probably not equipment either.

I think style is an ongoing metamorphosis. My next camera was a Minolta SR 7 and I used it initially for touristy things. I was overseas at the time and spent much of it traveling to tourist destinations. When I returned to the States, I spent quite a bit of time shooting local sports and news for the newspapers and schools in the area. My income was a substantial part of financing my engineering degree. While I never again used photography as a source of income, it has been a part of my professional life since college. I am now engaged in post doctoral research, and still using photography to support my endeavors.

Obviously, my style has changed based on the circumstances. As an archaeologist, my style tends more towards the landscape and more technical styles of shooting. This is certainly a far cry from spending 2 or 3 hours shooting a football game as opposed to 2 or 3 months documenting an archaeological site. Essentially, if we do not change styles throughout our time as photographers, we certainly must stagnate and wither.

While I have always shot film, just a little over a month ago I dumped 5k into a new Canon digital system. I strongly suspect that this new equipment will again be a catalyst for a significant change in my style.

Good luck and good shooting!

Quixdraw Loc: x

Thanks for your input! Nearly majored in Anthro / Archeology. Best of luck with your new kit!

graybeard

Coming from a film background, I spend a great deal of time on composition, with as sharp a focus as I can get, as my primary concentration. At the start of my day I get a meter reading and set the ISO and shutter speed for what I think are good general purpose settings, then tend to ignore them after I start. I prefer to shoot in Manual mostly, occasionally use Av and recently P, as long as it chooses a good compromise between SS and DOF. My first camera was a Kodak Brownie, where I quickly realized its limitations in fixed SS, F stop and focus. If it was sunny daylight, your subject did not move, and you weren't too close to it, you got a decent picture, otherwise not. Moving to a 35mm SLR later solved those things. But even tho I am now digital and don't have to worry about cost of film and developing, I still find myself spending a lot of time in getting the picture right when I shoot it. I don't do any post processing whatever. I suspect younger people who came up in the digital age spend less time in composition and exposure settings thinking it can be fixed later.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Perhaps I should rephrase that part to ignoring the need to pee

User ID

Obviously and evidently, language can be quite a stumbling block ...

User ID

Quix said VISUAL languages. Why do you focus on words ?

User ID

There are visual styles that can tag images to definable, but approximate, eras in photography. Thaz acoarst a vast generalization, but its nonetheless real.

Heres a few touchstones in chrono order:

Obviously theres the era before instantaneous shutter speeds. Those photos have a definite look.

Then theres the early era where photography feels it must prove itself worthy vs painting, the Pictorialists come to mind.

Theres the counter reaction to pictorialism by the f/64 Group and the Photo Realist movement.

Theres the heyday of Life and Look magazines, where a journalistic style was most admired.

Theres a sort of "Andy Warhol" era when wild experimentation rose to heights.

Theres a newer version of the journalistic look, as inspired by followers of Robert Frank.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

visual "languages" popular at certain periods in time... is what he wrote, and not;

"visual" languages popular at certain periods in time...

Hence in my first reply, I was asking for clarification if my perception was correct, because I did not fully understand what he meant. I was thinking of words that make vivid & broad representation that make one visualize an idea.

BebuLamar

The contents of the photograph a lot of time would suggest when it was made. People clothings, cars, old style diners etc..

Quixdraw Loc: x

Possibly more concise - iconic photographic styles or sympathy prevalent at at a point in time. On rare occasions I have seen photos taken at a known time that are such anachronisms, that one would almost suspect time travel.