If we continually ask others for their opinions on our work that will effectively shape the was we shoot and post process our images.
Are we then really developing our own style or are we becoming more alike and encouraging others to do the same?
Where do we define the boundaries of legitimate style difference and what is technicaly incorrect?
I was pondering the very same thing today. I've made a conscious decision to only critique technical aspects of a picture, and restrict my comments on artistic choices to "say something nice or say nothing at all".
So no more tilt for tat from me!
As for the boundary of style, I think a more experienced voice is needed here, not a rook like me.
Style can vary and be original... however, the opinions of others can some times help. There are plenty of "artists" that go throw a bucket of red paint on a white canvas and sell it for 10G's - doesn't mean it's nice to look at. You can design an album and then, due to "artistic vision/style", take a scissor and make jagged cuts randomly on each page - it's still not an advisable thing to do so.
When it comes to wedding work, I feel we have boundaries to consider. You can have your own style and your own niche - as long as "it works and is pleasant". Some people push the envelope, but they're still within the envelope. Getting peer review is one way to stay grounded and not cross into a territory where your work just doesn't "work". This consideration of "making it work" matters in this field because you're trying to sell and run a business developed on recording someone's special day. It would be far different if you were just painting for yourself or making a sculpture on your own and then selling it to an art gallery.
As far as technicality goes - you can have the most technically excellent work in front of you, and it can be boring. There will be flaws in almost any picture - partly because "technically correct" means different things to different people. As long as something looks nice, I think it's good to go.
Style is something personal........we can seem to be similar, but we all have our own style.......whether it's an angle, exposure, lighting technique or pose.
The style of today will change. A lot of style is driven by the media, television, magazine and film.
The "posed" unposed look seems to be the theme of today's style. That is a direct reflection of media ads......
Grunge, urban, gritty....that seems to also be very popular today.
Some good thoughts guys. I think that in a way we probably have some idea how to make the distinction but how to articulate it can be difficult.
If we could then that would be a valuable lesson or skill to pass on.
What made me think of it then was i had just made a coment to another post that the nice shots he had taken would have been better without the overlays he had used.
But then i am seeing work by a photographer who has a shot that looks like the brides dress is on fire.
Now if i were to comment i would say no way yet the image if technically spot on as with the rest of the guys work.
He has a market that appreciates what he does. Wether that same market will appreciate it with a bit of maturity is not yet known.
So even on that note if his work is great composition, posing , lighting etc yet not timeless but more age specific is that a style or a technical problem? Is understanding the changing attitudes of our clients part of our technical arsenal?
When i was a child i thought as a child...
You know what i'm saying.
I'd guess that a surprisingly high # of photographers from the 70's and 80's really, honestly thought their brandy snifter shots and selective color expressed "real content".
I agree with Maurice and George. Everybody kind of goes along with the "in" look, which will change. Ray makes a point, there needs to be content that will stand the test of time.
I recently looked at Jessica Claire's blog for the first time, after hearing for years that some admired her work.
As I scrolled down through the weddings, starting with the hanging dress shot, then the shoe shot ... I couldn't help think, "Oh, so this is where so many are getting their ideas".
That said, there are a lot of extremely talented shooters here who definitely put their individual spin on these events, and especially the ones who do not go with the trendy PP but just create lovely unique captures. That is why we keep coming back to this forum and clicking on threads, we are excited to see yet another interesting and fresh look at weddings.
mauriceramirez wrote:
I'd guess that a surprisingly high # of photographers from the 70's and 80's really, honestly thought their brandy snifter shots and selective color expressed "real content".
Just sayin'!
-m
Hey !! I resemble that remark !!..hahahaha......you forgot to mention the brides face superimposed into the grooms head...............!
Looking at trends and periods in movies is a fairly easy way to consider some aspects of this topic. The look and presentation of what's popular now is different from ten years ago. Movies get dated. Remakes are sometimes suprisingly good. Some become classics or camp. Some fans are nostalgic for the oldies. That relates to music, too.
Photos of me as a teenager, the clothes, hair, gestures, are dated, but then, I'm dated. My Senior HS portrait is fairly classic. I'm glad I have some that portray the times and me as a part of them. It's the story of my life. I'm glad the old photos of my ancestors reflect the period they lived in. I'd think the same applies to wedding albums.
That doesn't say all there is to say about style, but it's a response to people's references to trends in wedding photography.
To a large degree, any 5D with an 85mm in average light set to the "correct" settings will produce similar results from 2 separate shooters. Composition is what separates one from the other. The reason some here have good images and others great is because of the understanding of composition. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that composition is not grasped by everyone equally. Some have shot for years and looking at their work would know it. Then some noob comes along, posts their first wedding and blows everyone away. Some are better prone at "seeing" a moment then others. Simply dialing in the camera at the correct settings is one thing but do you "see" it. The ones that do have put in a lot of blood, sweat and tears in conditioning their eye.
So to answer your question, my style to present clean images. By clean I mean, even perspectives, lines and shapes that compliment one another. Less is more is a mantra I'm trying to go by. Can that be copied from someone, perhaps, but how can two see one thing exactly the way another does. It would be real interesting to set up a mock wedding and play it out the EXACT same way 5 different times and have 5 different photographers capture it. I wonder how similar or not the story telling would be. Interesting topic for sure.
