Personal style vs....?

[darkman]

I tend to view my photographic "style" within specific genre. Like most of us, that doesn't mean this is all I shoot. While going through various peoples web sites I noticed (obviously) some peoples work comprised mostly of images that I view as "fun" but not "serious" as far as my work goes. I mean this in the sense of the "fun" images are just shots I'll take while just exploring the medium. Whereas, by "serious" I mean it's what I strive to do.

Using a friend who does water colors as an example, her paintings that you'll see at shows are of people. At her house she has paintings of all sorts of things besides people. I found an abstract digging around her paintings and bought it. Like myself, her "fun" or exploring work never makes it out of her house. In my case, off the computer screen.

Do we set up false walls which are limiting ourselves? Maybe even missing our calling by shooting what we love vs. what we may be best at? I'd like to hear how others approach this subject/idea. Especially in terms of the work they would put forward in a portfolio's vs what stays at home. I sometimes end up with pictures I really like but am not sure what to do with them. The don't fit into my portfolio's.

Thanks, Mike

[Ronnoco]

Actually, you chose whether to limit your scope and the type of photography you do or not. The advantage of broadening your range of work is that you are always busy, always making money and never bored. Advertising also becomes less necessary because people come to you.

I have done television production, video, multiscreen presentations, mixed stills and video, photojournalism, sports, portraits, weddings, advertising, political work, scenics, public relations, aerial photography, photos for an inquest, a textbook, and even a Phd. thesis.

So, hey, broaden your horizon, your portfolio, and the range of photos in your studio!:thumbsup:

Ronnoco

[adina]

I think we should all adopt my personal style. We'd have an entire forum full of people with fabulous footwear!

[adina]

Just so you don't think I'm picking on you....

What am I best at? Children
What do I love most? Children
What pays the bills? Children
What keeps me busy? Children.

While Ronnoco has a point about being diverse, I've chosen to be specific. To limit my scope. However, this has kept me busy, made me money, and I'm not bored. And I don't advertise much at all, because I've found my market, and they come to me.

You have to do what works for you. If I'd have chosen to go broaden my range, I'd have burnt myself out trying to keep up. But I have done magazine work, corporate headshot work, seniors, weddings, ad work, stuff for a book. But in the end, it comes down to what works best for me.

[darkman]

While Ronnoco has a point about being diverse, I've chosen to be specific. To limit my scope. However, this has kept me busy, made me money, and I'm not bored. And I don't advertise much at all, because I've found my market, and they come to me..

Thanks for the comments!

When I'm being payed, I'm shooting for the client and not my self. Sure, I try and throw in a few new ideas I'd like to do or try. More often than not, these creative/different shots won't get picked by the client. They want what I consider the "typical" shot. The shot of their kid doing something that's reminds them of how they see there kids..

When I'm shooting for myself it's generally a money losing situation. If I'm doing "test" shots or working on a personal ideas, I pay the models and offer them a print. As well as often paying someone to do makeup. If I'm doing still life, I end up buying props. Personally, I'd prefer doing this than trying to make money with my photography.

I posted this in the "art as photography forum" for a reason. Based on the comments, maybe we need a "commercial photography" forum where the goal is making money?

Every pro I know, including word renowned ones, shoot for the client AND shoot for themselves. One genre is shown to perspective clients and another goes to galleries, portfolio books they keep _for_themselves_, or never make it off the monitor. The latter is what I'm referring too. They're shooting these for their own creativity, not to make a buck.

I have another friend who is a very successful commercial photographer doing product shots. I find his work, lighting skills and compositions, amazing. He still goes out every year with an 8x10 view camera (though he shoots everything from dslrs to mf/lf with digital backs in the studio) to do what he refers to as "fine art" landscapes. These are for him. The goal isn't to sell them to supplement his "day" job. They hang in his studio and get sold only if someone want to buy it.

Even in the latest issue of American Photo which is focused on assistance this time, in most of the interviews, the assistance talked about the importance of making time to shoot for themselves to remind them why they love this photography. They're not always out to make a buck. I was at Steve Hanks house and was amazed by how much work he has that doesn't fit into the two main genre's of work - kids and glamour - you'll see in galleries or in books. From the comments I received so far, maybe he's doing something wrong? However, he's one of the chosen few monetarily wise in the art field. Adina, from my experience, you're the exception in that both categories are the the same to you.

Maybe the answer to my own question is I should put together an "eclectic" portfolio to put images that don't fit into my "standard" subject portfolios? Then I could do something with them besides having them just reside as a file on my computer. I'm not a fan of shooting for the monitor. I may even sell some of these. :blush2:

I'm sure most of us have these types of images - often one-offs - that we like but don't fit within our "standard" work. What do you do with them? Have you been doing what I have by just leaving them in a folder on the computer? Or like my painting friends leaving them in a back room? I'm not sure what to do with these odd ball pieces and my goal isn't to make money off every image I take. Also for me, photography is mostly a creative outlet I do for fun. The couple of hundred bucks I make here and there is noise and doesn't really effect me one way or another. The reality for me is I turn down jobs that will take up too much of my time irregardless of the money involved

Plesae excuse my writing, my eyes are still blurred from having lasik done yesterday

[megan]

Hm. Interesting subject, especially as I'm in the process of revamping my website to include my more "serious" work. It's not up yet, but I'll post when it is.

I've sort of solved the issue of eclecticism by having several portfolios (which will soon be reflected on my site.) I've got several fine art portfolios containing the different projects I'm working on, as well as a bunch of less formal portfolios (e.g. those black Itoya sleeved folios) with my work from Yellowstone, a new one for the boxing portraits - you get the idea. That way, you can show someone a solid series of work as well as a wide range of work and appear organized and focused. Or, at least, I like to think that!

There are advantages to both Adina and Ronnoco's polar opposite approaches. It's good to have a diverse range of images (as well as fun and interesting shooting it - new experiences can only make your work grow), but I can also see the point in Adina mastering her very specific genre. I guess it just comes down to preferences.

I tend to work on several series on the long term. And then start a new series along the way... gah... but honestly, what I truly love doing and am working on building a professional business is photographing people. I feel I do really strong portraiture, so as a profession, I am pursuing that. I'm in NY - so there is plenty of opportunity to photograph actors, musicians, etc. There' s also plenty of competition, so professionally, I'll be going Adina's route. Master of one instead of jack of all trades. Artistically/personally, however... I'm photographically "ADD" and will always be all over the place!

[Ronnoco]

Hm. There are advantages to both Adina and Ronnoco's polar opposite approaches. It's good to have a diverse range of images (as well as fun and interesting shooting it - new experiences can only make your work grow), but I can also see the point in Adina mastering her very specific genre. I guess it just comes down to preferences.

It sure does. Diversity works in a number of ways. It keeps one flexible, interested, and constantly learning. Ideas and approaches are transferable from one genre to another as well. From a business point of view, it makes sense as well, not to be totally dependent on a narrow market or specific genre. I find markets are constantly expanding and contracting and business is a bit like surfing the wave. Keep on it while it is expanding but move to something else when it starts contracting. (Of course in Canada, we do not have markets the size of New York City, California, etc.)

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

[QUOTE=adina]You have to do what works for you. If I'd have chosen to go broaden my range, I'd have burnt myself out trying to keep up. QUOTE]

Keeping up isn't a problem, but live television was a real challenge. Absolutely anything could happen and usually did. People can be very unpredictable when you stick a television camera in front of their face.

The main point however is to combine being successful with enjoying what you do.

Ronnoco

[adina]

What do I do with everything else?

That's the crap that gets posted here!