There’s no single approach when it comes to photography. Photography is as personal and individual as the fingerprints of the photographer. There are basic photography rules, which can be helpful, and the laws of physics, which most often must be obeyed, but beyond that photography is limited only by the individual powers of creativity.
This flexible characteristic can both facilitate or hinder individual progress in photography.
My first serious interest in photography was while I was in the Air Force. I purchased an Olympus OM-1 SLR with a couple of lens and took photography classes at night. At that point my idea of what was “good photography” was modeled from popular commercial photographs I’d been exposed to. This being before the Internet (yes, there was life before the Internet) some of the best photographs were published in Life and National Geographic Magazines.
It’s natural to initially emulate those you admire or those who’s work you judge as being good. But at a point in the process there needs to be a realization there’s no one standard for good. This is the point where individual style for your photography begins to take shape and your work becomes your own. However, photography doesn’t force this jump or realization to occur so sometimes it doesn’t and natural creative progress is held up. You can’t be afraid to take chances, trust you own taste and strike out on your own.
Often finding your own style is a chaotic process as you experiment with different techniques. Not everything you try works the first time. There are high points and low points.
Chaos in the world brings uneasiness, but it also allows the opportunity for creativity and growth. – Tom Barrett
I often shoot photos of poor quality and in the privacy of my home office I often create bad photographic renderings–the worst you’ll never see. ;-) But each time I fail, I add to my knowledge of what doesn’t work and what the results of certain actions are. I keep coming back, I keep trying and yes, I keep failing–but there are also successes!
So while the float-plane pictured above may be on final approach I’m far from mine.
Well said. It is amazing how I will reluctantly enter into the chaos, moving forward with trust and courage rather than stay with my comfort zone, which stagnates me.
A very interesting and thought provoking comment. Looking back through old pictures
printed many years ago, I can see a steady but very slow change. I don’t think I’ve arrived at a unique style yet! It seems to me, it’s easier to improve technique and technical skills than to change creatively.
I have the trouble I can’t really see what I have become better at in photography. It’s a bit disturbing on one hand, but also comforting on the other. I would say that I have become better in not taking photos I will throw away anyway. I have learnt to walk around and compose better. When I painted, many years ago, I learnt by copying techniques that others had used. In photography, I have not even thought of trying to make a photo like a known photographer, sort of learning by copying. I have no idea why, and it is something for me to consider for my future development. Thanks for this thought provoking post, Earl.
Ah, I remember now that I imitated one of your steam locomotive photos, so maybe I am doing it without knowing it… :)
@Ove: LOL ! I would hope you’d pick someone better to imitate. :-)
I think my influences are wide-spread. I never chose any one individual or even small group, then consciously modeled my work on theirs. On the other hand, I know I am still constantly being influenced by what I see and admire. Don makes a point that hits home for me. I have spent a great deal of time improving technical skills, and I am a long way from having a unique style. It has taken a while (and I am still working on it); but, I am, finally, growing more and more comfortable with experimenting. It takes time to build a tolerance for the chaos. I agree with Earl. The secret is to embrace what we once called failures and see them as experiments that have added to our knowledge base.