What's Your Style? - thanks to Ken Rockwell

[CJ Swartz]

These are excerpts from Ken Rockwell's website, because he says it better than I do -- we've been listing videos about technique and articles detailing info to know about shooting wildlife, and it's time to remind ourselves that the techniques to learn are about how the equipment works, and how birds, mammals, insects behave in the wild - but the photography comes from you, not a list of techniques or a book. I think most or all members know that, but I thought it important to post something for those who may come later to this forum, looking for help to get started in learning or improving their photography.



I've been a rule follower all my life, and have tried to practice "good photographic technique" in hopes of creating some inspiring images. I've understood that an eye for the image is the foremost ingredient, but kept hoping that improving technique would also help me develop an "eye". I'm not sure that I'll ever get there, but I hope that YOU will. Techniques are good to know, but compelling images can be created by people who don't know an aperture from an aardvark. I'm not saying that technical knowledge in photography is unimportant, but I am saying that an artistic sense is more important than knowing the sync speed of your camera.



The saying has been around "forever" - "Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly" Perhaps it would be better to DO photography first, and THEN learn the rules? Some of us have a hard time breaking "rules", but new photographers can shoot what they love and then try to learn how to make certain shots work better - after they have created the image in their mind. Of course, you have to know some of the rules to get images that aren't totally blown out or blurred unless you shoot only in average light.



What do YOU think?


Here's an excerpt of what Ken Rockwell thinks with a link to his article...

From Ken Rockwell's website --

"...If I gave you my pen, would you have my signature? Of course not.
So if I gave you my camera, would you take pictures that look like mine? Of course not.


Why would anyone think otherwise? Mostly because camera companies fuel this easy-to-believe nonsense. If you think a LEICA will make pictures like Cartier-Bresson, a Hasselblad or 4x5" like Ansel Adams, or a Nikon will shoot pictures like Galen Rowell, you're more likely to buy that camera.

You need to enjoy seeing things your own way. Never try to duplicate or imitate anyone else's work; it only makes you worse. Ignore what you read about how you are supposed to do things; it only sets you up for making more of the same as everyone else.

So what is uniquely yours? What is your signature? It's whatever and however you see things, entirely on your own.

When people start in photography, they try to learn "rules" and technique. These are never more than easy crutches, or training wheels, to help you start making some sort of pictures on your first day. These can be helpful for the first month or two when you're starting out, but ultimately these technical concepts like "exposure" are only guidelines to get you started on the much longer path to expressing your own unique way of seeing things.

Too many people spend decades trying to learn more rules and technique, confusing these easy to learn "rules" and obvious technical facts with photography itself. Photography is the expression of imagination, not the duplication of reality. The only reason for basic technical competence is so that you can show others what you're seeing, but other than that, technique — and especially the brand of camera — is irrelevant. Photo technique is like learning a language; it's just a medium through which we communicate, but it's not the message..."

[Nasturtium]

thank you CJ. Now that I have a handle on Photoshop this is exactly the kind of advice I need. I'm beginning to realize that the most important part of what I do is spend time away from the computer clarifying what I want to say with my images.

[Godmother]

Originally Posted by CJ Swartz

- but the photography comes from you, not a list of techniques or a book.

Strongly disagree with that.

But I'm not surpriced.... I always disagree with that person.

You can't show shit from your uniqueness with little or no technical knowledge.

Learn your craft, learn the rules! If you don't know the rules you can't break them or make them your own!

It's not one or the other. LEARN that's never wrong, learn AND do. You can't chose one. If you chose one you'll never succeed in life.

So, again, I disagree.

You won't be able to express yourself without learning, you can't learn without research.
Learn from books, movies, ppl, any other media in hand, learn from pairs, from professionals, from ppl starting out. Learn from everywhere and everyone.

And NEVER stop learning.

my 2 cents
x

[CJ Swartz]

Originally Posted by Godmother

"but the photography comes from you, not a list of techniques or a book." -- Cj

Strongly disagree with that....
You can't show shit from your uniqueness with little or no technical knowledge.
Learn your craft, learn the rules! If you don't know the rules you can't break them or make them your own!
It's not one or the other. ...x

Godmother, I'll hold to the idea that photography comes from the person, not from techniques. No one is throwing the rule book away - they're just not looking at it until they need it.

Annabel Williams, photographer and teacher, is "a firm believer that it’s all too easy to get bogged down by the technical aspects of photography." She’s quoted as saying,

"Photographing people is 90% psychology and 10% technique."

One of her books - "Think of your camera as the least important thing you need to take a picture."

"How many settings do you use on your washing machine? I'm betting 2 at the most... Your camera is like your washing machine - set it on Auto and let it do it's job." Actually she advises folks to set it to Av (aperture priority) rather than the total Auto found on cameras, and this book is for non-professionals, but she runs a school in the U.K. for professional photographers.

She "wants to inspire people to see the easier side of what is so often portrayed as difficult and technical."

I'm in agreement with that goal.

[Nasturtium]

I don't think he means not to bother learning photography basics and to just rely on your 'voice'. I think he means that you have to have it all - photography fundamentals (and these days digital darkroom skills) AND an artistic vision. I've seen plenty of images from people with spot on technical skills but no creative 'spark'. And you certainly can't get the best out of your camera if you have no idea what it's doing. Just my $0.02.

from Cliff Mautner on Scott Kelby's blog today

the only way to develop your style is to make sure your technical abilities and fundamentals are completely, and utterly innate. Your camera needs to be an extension of your mind’s eye. If you’re too concerned with F-stops, shutter speeds, ISO’s, focusing, and achieving accurate exposures, you’ll NEVER develop a style. If you find yourself struggling with the basics, you’ll struggle even more with composition, and other elements that make up your style.

[rizkhanpsy]

A real pro knows both.

[0lBaldy]

LOL, This thread reminds me of Photoshop... many ways to do the same thing....

Being objective.. (as I most certainly am!)

As I see it.. Y'all are in agreement and saying the same thing in different ways.... Ya need to learn what you want to excel in, then go do it your own way as long as it works for you.. and if not.... try something different to make it like you want it (unless you are working for someone else, then you might have to do what they want and in the manner that they deem is the correct way)......

Soooo, I agree with all that has been stated above!!

Except that you can show your uniqueness with little or no technical knowledge it may look like shit to others but it is your uniqueness

Way back in the 60's I gave my students an inexpensive Brownie or Diana (with a roll of electrical tape, for light leaks on the Diana)... the most technical thing to learn was look through the view finder adjust for parallax and press the shutter release... There was a ton of uniqueness shown as far as composition and shooting with different lighting setups... they eventually learned how to take the pictures they saw in their mind before snapping the "Snap Shot" and it carried over into their shoots when they got more technical.... it took a few rolls to get used to the cameras peculiarities (the learning part) but after that.... individuality shined through

[CJ Swartz]

Originally Posted by 0lBaldy

...
As I see it.. Y'all are in agreement and saying the same thing in different ways.... ...

I believe you are right.

Originally Posted by 0lBaldy

...Way back in the 60's I gave my students an inexpensive Brownie or Diana (with a roll of electrical tape, for light leaks on the Diana)... the most technical thing to learn was look through the view finder adjust for parallax and press the shutter release... There was a ton of uniqueness shown as far as composition and shooting with different lighting setups... they eventually learned how to take the pictures they saw in their mind before snapping the "Snap Shot" and it carried over into their shoots when they got more technical.... it took a few rolls to get used to the cameras peculiarities (the learning part) but after that.... individuality shined through

Cool ! I wanted to take a photography class in the late 50's - 60's, but I was chicken because it was only (geeky) boys in the class (I've learned since then those might have been the guys to pay attention to). I'm not sure, but I doubt that their instructor was that original. My instruction in the 90's was pretty conservative. I've only recently begun to appreciate the contemporary photo styles; I looked for the traditional lighting/cropping/exposure etc., but then started appreciating the overall feel and especially the increased emphasis on joyous expressions. You look at some of the OLD portraits that come to this site for restoration/retouching - with grim expressions that would scare their descendants.

[palms]

My take is

Have a go, then find out what went wrong ! ! ! and try and improve doing both

mind you

"...If I gave you my pen, would you have my signature? Of course not.
So if I gave you my camera, would you take pictures that look like mine? Of course not.

i so agree, how many people want to be like Dave Hill ? Dragan ? Amy Dresser ? They are the originals or maybe it is just the fame they want ?

Palms