Topic: Style versus Technique

[Late Developer]

An interesting and, I believe, thought provoking take on the difference between style and technique:

Gregory Heisler on Vimeo

[Indofunk]

Also a good observation on why every generation of artist ever to exist has said "[my art form] is dead". Yet all art forms seem to live on

[Ezzie]

Very inspiring. Thanks for posting

[Francois]

Quite an interesting way of putting it...
It also reminds me of a quote I read elsewhere:

The only people that never make mistakes are the ones who never do anything.

[zapsnaps]

Am I the only FW that had to google this guy? Even now, I don't recognise his photos. He had an interesting point, though.

But I think the question is more complex than his bons mots suggest. Give a novice a reasonable d***tal camera, tell them to keep it on auto everything and they will take a technically well exposed picture. But will it be well composed? Will they be able to 'see' the photo? Possibly, if they have a visual vocation. Give a graphic designer a digital camera for the first time and they are likely to produce commercially satisfactory results. Now look at what many FWs take. Some have expensive kit, but many have cameras of a certain age, bought for small change and get very pleasing results using out of date film dunked in coffee. These guys often have a recognisable style - I think we can probably all recognise some FW's work without bothering to read the caption. I just know it's by so and so. They have developed a recognisable style. But their technique allows them to make really interesting photographs from modest kit. And I really like that. So many sites are all about new kit & the people with the most disposable income win. Here, it's almost the opposite. A combination of FWs style & technique produce rewarding pictures. They are indivisible.

[Francois]

Am I the only FW that had to google this guy?

Yes you are 

Actually, I didn't know him and still don't... maybe I should google him...

[Indofunk]

I just assumed that since a FW posted something about him, that he is someone I should pay attention to    Is this a bad assumption??

[zapsnaps]

He has a number of Time covers, so somebody must know the chap.

I admit that I am terrible with names. There is one US photographer who has photographed every US president for decades, but I don't recall his name either. He had an interesting technique - he used just two continuous lights. That was his style.

[Late Developer]

I can't say I know much about him, though I had heard his name. I just thought he made a good point about some people mistaking technique for style.

[moominsean]

Yeah that was interesting and made sense. Technique may be a part of style, but I think style remains regardless of technique. Just to use myself as an easy example, while I shoot 80% Polaroid, I've been told I have an identifiable style that is recognizable in shots taken in other formats. I don't make a genuine effort to shoot a certain way, it's just how I shoot. I do employ certain techniques as a means to an end, though, just like most photographers, but the underlying style is present throughout. I see that in many other photographers on FW, as well.

He was more about commercial photography, and it is mostly true that a client doesn't care how you did something...they just care about the final product. And a sad truth is that it is easy to emulate a style through manipulation, which brings about a lot of "why should I pay good money when I could do that myself." Though I suppose that is true in much of art world, particularly where the technique behind the style doesn't appear complicated.

[Indofunk]

it is easy to emulate a style through manipulation

I (and Mr Heisler) wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. It's easy to emulate a LOOK through manipulation. But the actual style, the eye that took the picture, the subject/composition of the picture itself? Very hard to emulate without a lot of skill.

However, it is probably true that commercial clients are looking for a look rather than a style.

[moominsean]

it is easy to emulate a style through manipulation

I (and Mr Heisler) wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. It's easy to emulate a LOOK through manipulation. But the actual style, the eye that took the picture, the subject/composition of the picture itself? Very hard to emulate without a lot of skill.

However, it is probably true that commercial clients are looking for a look rather than a style.

That's more what I meant.

[Francois]

it is easy to emulate a style through manipulation

I (and Mr Heisler) wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. It's easy to emulate a LOOK through manipulation. But the actual style, the eye that took the picture, the subject/composition of the picture itself? Very hard to emulate without a lot of skill.

It actually might become a bit easier than we think. Granted it won't give you composition, but MIT just made a piece of software that can emulate the lighting used by various photographers. Take a smartphone snapshot, tell it you want it to become an Irving Penn or an Avedon and voila, instant masterpiece to the eyes of the uninitiated... and these are the people where all of photography's problems lie.

[Indofunk]

it is easy to emulate a style through manipulation

I (and Mr Heisler) wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. It's easy to emulate a LOOK through manipulation. But the actual style, the eye that took the picture, the subject/composition of the picture itself? Very hard to emulate without a lot of skill.

It actually might become a bit easier than we think. Granted it won't give you composition, but MIT just made a piece of software that can emulate the lighting used by various photographers. Take a smartphone snapshot, tell it you want it to become an Irving Penn or an Avedon and voila, instant masterpiece to the eyes of the uninitiated... and these are the people where all of photography's problems lie.

Trust the eggheads at MIT to come up with something like that (my sister used to be one of those eggheads, so I know the sheer level of brilliance that exists there )