I heard an interview of Bruce Beresford, an Australian film director, discussing style some decades ago. He could look at a film and and recognise instantly who directed, because each director, he said, had a distinctive style. He said, like you, he couldn't describe his style, but he supposed he ad his own style because other directors could recognise his. I used to, somewhat in jest, describe myself as a photographer in search of style. And then I realised, I have a style. Not only that, but I have always had a style, back to the meginnings of my photography. Some of my photos from 30 years ago, when I was using medium format, are quite like some of my photos from this year. You have a style, it's reflected in the photos in those books that you like, it's reflected in the photos you make for the fun of it and for your clients. I am 2e, twice exceptional. Basically, I have two (or more) kinds of neurodiversity. One is just an immoderately high IQ, I am moderately gifted. Commonly, gifted people have a (possibly unconscious) feeling of superiority, they have some disdain for their "inferiors." Second, I am autistic. Most autistic people mask, they try to behave "just like everyone else." S far as I can tell, I don't do that, that lead me to research the traits of giftedness, and that explains why I don't feel the need to mask. When photographers bang on about composition, mood, feeling, rule of turds, beauty ... I get exactly none of that. I try to make interesting photos, there are features I look for, but I will try to make an interesting photograph out of anything, far more than other people I know of, and often I make something that pleases me. I have TS-E lenses because I like to shoot building, I like to use them for all landscapes because if I tilt the camera I distort the landscape just as I would a building. Because I don't like tilting my camera, my landscapes are distinctly different from those anyone else I know would make. So, that's part of my style. If you find a book by the late Richard White, an Australian landscape photographer, buy it. He is one who shot large format black and white film into the twenty first century. Also consider "A few of the Legends," by Peter Adams. It took almost 40 years to write, it's a catalogue of some of the significant photographers of the 20th century.

As usual, a thought provoking video, Keith. I would say that the vast majority of those of us who think of ourselves as photographers have no intention of trying to make a living at it. To sell the occasional print is nice as it does help to make you feel that you're doing something right. But, as I'm sure you are only too aware of, doing it for a living and having clients is quite different. But many of the videos on KZfaq almost make you feel that you have to have that 'style' or 'genre' or you have failed and you may as well sell your camera. Your channel is one of the few that doesn't treat us all as beginners or someone who has to make a living at it. You simply tell us how it is and let us make up our own minds! One of the best ways to help photographers, in the middle of their journey as it were, is to give them permission to try different things. We know how to focus and expose a photograph but sometimes we want to experiment and push our limits. It was your expertise on tilt/shift lenses that brought me here and now I'm hooked. I'll never make a living out of it but as I get older, I find that I am less concerned about other peoples opinions on them and just enjoy the challenge of using them.

Love the approach. I guess one could say: Make photos you yourself care about and/or find interesting.

Reading or rather studying a book is always an excellent way of advancing your skills in any subject, simply because you need to pause and think about the content as opposed to passively ingest video tutorials. In my opinion finding your style means making photos that bring you satisfaction. If other people like your work, that is a bonus. But unless you shoot first and foremost for yourself it is impossible to ever develop a style. Thanks for your thought provoking videos!

Photography is my therapy. Always has been, always will be. I love taking photos of just about anything. No style just whatever captures my attention. Have always struggled trying to explain my style so your video strikes home hard. Your videos have always resonated with me Keith. Thank you so much!!

I agree with your commentary completely. I've been taking photos, mainly black and white, for years. My approach is to take a photograph of a scene/composition that catches my eye. At the time I may not fully understand what the motivation was, but once printed and over time the reason or a reason seems to reveal itself. I don't want to sound pretentious, but I try to answer the question "why did I take that photograph?". Personally I have no interest in camera clubs or having having my photos analyzed and critiqued. If others view and connect in some way with my photographs, that's fine, if not, that's fine too. Photography is a personal journey and that's enough for me. Anyway, I really enjoy your videos and reviews.

What a great “rant,” and I mean that in a positive way: it is a welcome message and I agree on all points, although I suppose some might find certain points contrary to what they have been taught, or led to believe. I tend to equate “style” with “formulaic,” and I can see why this would be important to someone who hopes to sell their work. I can’t help but think back to painters like Margaret Keane and her large-eyed children, and photographers like Galen Rowell, with his striking and over-saturated prints of mountain scenes. Some people really like those “formulas” and are willing to pay big money to get a “limited edition” to hang on their walls. This is not a criticism, and I would probably do the same if I were trying to make a living by my art, as financial security is only possible with volume. However, being blessed by doing photography as a hobby, I am free to try (or some might say experiment with) many approaches. Sometimes the results are quite pleasing. Perhaps my “style” is “whatever works at the moment.”

Thanks for the honesty. I have always said that if an image is technically correct (no lamposts sticking out of peoples head etc) and you like it then it's a good picture. Thats all that matters and as for judges? well no comment.

I do love these types of video. I wouldn't say I have a style, but I do have an approach which allows me to create the photographs that appeal to me. I'm a big fan of photo books and as you say, it's important to understand why you like some images, but also why you don't like some photos. Keep up the good work. :-)

Agree with many commenters and yourself, in that Style is the most over used term in photo circles and inevitably leads to repetitiveness If a photograph holds ones attention, then it has worked and had the impact. Of course I'm an amateur enthusiast and am very happy in being so😀😀😀 😇

Once again, you've nailed it. Yeah--the dreaded rule of thirds! I don't use the "thirds grid" as I don't want to be subconsciously influenced--as they say, rules are made to be broken and following them simply means that you're conforming to established standards, which is the antithesis of creativity. Re style, I have no desire to conform to any consistently identifiable MO--I just rely on my experience to guide me in making images that "feel right" to me. If others enjoy them, so much the better, but unless they're paying me to produce a specific result, their opinion has no bearing on my work. Also, it's all well and good if an image has "deep meaning," but that's far from an essential quality for a successful image. What the artist intended is largely irrelevant, as it's the viewer who determines what an image means (or doesn't) to them. If you have to explain it (or provide an "artist's statement")...

Great video Keith. I would describe myself as an "opportunistic" photographer. I enjoy the whole process of being out on a shoot, seeing what is around that invokes my interest, and then post-processing the images to my liking. I think of photography as art in that it should make the viewer feel something. What that something is should be up to them and not prescribed by the photographer.

You nailed the issue where a lot of photographers, including me, are struggling with. Developing your own style and try not to be influenced by other people's comments. Much appreciated Keith.

That's why I'm glad to be a hobbyist instead of a professional. If I was a professional, I would need to take pictures that others like. As a hobbyist, I can take pictures of what I like.

I have a style of lighting that is my own, but more importantly I have a way of communicating with the people I'm shooting, while shooting, that creates a style. I also have a way of dealing with those who try to academize everything, which most of the academics would call rather disrespectful (because, honestly I have a negative amount of respect for them). My landscapes are snapshotty, documentary things taken for my own enjoyment of remembering where I've been. Snapshotty as in stitching together 180mp of panoramas of mountain ranges, etc. But my "Style" is in the way I get the facial expressions from people who make them feel good about themselves when they see their own images. I will never enter a competition, and I consider turning off likes counters on Instagram. But I take feedback like "you made me feel good about how I look" from a girl who has had her confidence shredded by society very seriously. Those are the people I care about. Academic critics have been told where to stuff their opinions in the past. In a very graphic style.

How good are 'those' coversations: "Oh, I love this that or the other about your photo, is that meant to represent xyz...?" "Well no ... I just liked the subject so I took the photo!". In all seriousness though, like yourself I'm glad I never got caught up in all that hype with photography. Why MUST one have a 'style'? Why MUST one have a 'series' of photographs etc etc? I understand how these aspects of photography come into play: becoming known for a particular photographic look or feel; and shooting a series to more clearly tell a story if one is exhibiting their work is not necessarily a bad thing, but it's definitely not the 'be all & end all' of being a photographer. I often wonder how many novice photographers have stopped taking photo's before they've even really begun due to all this perceived pressure out there about rules and styles and bodies of work etc; it's enough to make anyone throw their camera away and take up knitting lol. Same with books: any 'how to' type of tome is going to be heavily weighted on those preferences of the author/s and as we all know there's often more than one way to kill a cat. Sure, in retrospect they'll all be similar with regards to technique, alas with the customary "this is the way I prefer to do it" spiel. Yep, can't speak for anyone else but I really do enjoy my photography knowing that I don't have anyone else to please with the photos other than me. Good topic of discussion Keith 👍

I loved this video. It's as if you have put my thoughts and feelings about photography into words. I fully agree with what you said. And at the same time, it is also comforting to me. I am so happy to have found your channel. It is like a treasure trove of experience, knowledge and clear thinking. I think I can say without exaggeration or flattering that this is one of the best photography videos I have ever watched on KZfaq. Thank you very much!

Spot on with this one Keith.

You summarize things quite well. Personally, I capture memories - the memorable views of people, places, and things which I want to view and remember. My post processing is typically to enhance how I felt and recall the scene. Beyond that, I don't care - I've no style at all I'm aware of. It's always seemed to me to be a sort of limiting way to think - "is this shot my style?". I do believe some photogs have a natural aptitude for certain types of photography, which is important to recognize. Some people ignore what they're good at in pursuit of "style", which can lead to wasted effort producing photos they don't even like. For me, I'm mediocre at everything, so I just soldier on and keep shooting everything - once in a while I get lucky with a real banger of a photo 😂

The late science fiction author Isaac Asimov's books became classics in his own lifetime and part of the syllabus of some moderrn literature courses. He was asked in an interview if the motivations attributed to some of his characters by literature academics were accurate. With tongue firmly in his cheek his answer was that, while their views did not match his recollections of his thoughts when writing his books, they were the experts so their analysis must be correct.

You have nailed it again. Thanks for saying what I have been feeling for quite some time now.

An interesting topic. Can't say I have any photographic style. I photograph wildlife, and I take the kind of images that the situation allows me. This video did confirm to me the fact that I need to get eyeglasses. While you were speaking at the beginning, I looked at the two images on your screen. The gummy bears and the landscape. While watching the gummy bears photo, my first thoughts were "Now that is a dramatic photo of a forest fire". And then you showed the image full screen, and told us about it. Had I been drinking something, I'd have spit it out like in movies. I really need those eyeglasses.

I agree completely. Anytime I read a deep, philosophical, metaphysical explanation of why an "artist" takes images in a certain way, I cringe. This type of mental onanism is popular amongst the artsy types - largely to add some gravitas to what is in reality just a picture. If you have to use more than ten words to explain a picture, you're trying too hard. Sure, you can describe in detail how the picture came about (technique, location, history, etc.) but don't try to make it sound like a doctorate dissertation in philosophy.

I think this is great, you spent most of the video explaining your own personal photography style by critiquing books.

very groovy. i love all your shows, but this is what i come for. your view of the world and your good art attitude. i would enjoy a show of your prints that you like. the ones that you would say "i would show that to people if i took it". thanks for sharing and making this a better world.

Interesting discussion Keith. I think unless your photography is seriously abstract it's hard to develop a unique style that becomes synonymous with your work. Realistically clients just want good solid images so deviating into a very specific style would likely alienate your work from prospective clients. Sure, there is going to be a very small niche of clients that want something so " out there " just to be different. A style can of course be subtle, it might even just be a certain colour grade that you use or editing technique that makes your work relatively easy to spot. I don't think I have a particular style per say, but people have said they knew a photo was mine just by looking at it. Not sure whether I should be flattered or insulted by that lol 😋 If a style does define a photographers work I'd be inclined to suggest it was something that evolved over time with no real intention made. If you are just starting to take photos and already trying to manufacture a style from day one, I'd say don't bother. Learn the basic fundamentals and over a long period of time your style will probably develop. I'd say you only develop a style once you have learned the rules and are now ready to break them 😉

Great views! Very refreshing!

I just like to take photos

Good discussion! Personally, I wonder why I (or somebody else) should have a photographic style? I just take a picture if the view/subject/light etc appeals to me.

I suspect that expounding on your photographic style is either for the purpose of salesmanship, oneupsmanship, or giving yourself confidence in what you do. Your photos tell me more than your description and explanation of your style.

Well enjoyed. -- BAK --

Forgot to add, if one plays the game with the "current in Vogue" it might be considered a "style" HDR Over Saturation anyone, 😂🙃😉

It depends of who your audience are. If you like to put it in an art gallery you need a voice and cohesive group of photographs. Usually you need an art degree to sell. This is something I have been working on as I have the ambition to do more storytelling and ART. But I give up on that as I concentrate on having fun and try to achieve the goal I have set up. My problem 15 years ago and the resent two years is that I have a tendency to be sensitive of what photo equipment I need. I decided to upgrade to 45 Mpix DSLR and that upgrade is soon finished, just a used D850 and a 400mmF2.8 G VR lens left. I now looking into going to Fuji GFX in the future for the wide crop ability but first I will use my PC lenses for that.An alternative is to get a Z8 if its a 55-60 Mpix camera and use adapters

I really like the photo on your printer..

I went thru all this theory in various ways but today all it come down to with me is I photography what I like and really don't care about "externalities".

I guess I do have a "style"....it's the same one a chimpanzee would use if you gave him a camera for a few years....given enough time, sooner or later he may get a nice photo. In all seriousness, many of my most prized photos have zero style or message and serve only to sometimes remind me of something I saw or witnessed that I might otherwise forget. It's surprising how often some old friends will be pleased to see an older photo of someplace we visited in years prior. It's a good thing the chimp came along with us.

If people try to ascribe deeper meaning to my photographs their brains would end up twisted like a pretzel.

A guy that takes pictures of buildings and landscapes shouldn't give his opinion on art photography.