Weekly Photo Contest | Voice | October 9 - 16

[OldMacs4Me]

@OldMacs4Me: Another interesting entry, and thanks for considering the actual topic. Unfortunately I cannot see stereoscopic images, and never have been able to. As a kid I would use a Viewmaster toy with the wheel of photos and always close one eye because the images never lined up properly. I wish I could see this as intended ( but of course, you had no way of knowing, and most people can see these)

The luck of the draw.

I think most of my photography is trying to capture or project a mood. For me Box Elders present a huge challenge. Often there is a worthy image just begging to be captured and almost as often I fail to capture it. The exception is when I move a bit to the right and take the second half of the stereo pair. These trees have a depth to them that really benefits from that third dimension.

I mentioned mood and this image was taken a few days after the death of my Mom. That was certainly not a mood or feeling I wanted to enshrine. This tree, battered by time, was able to overpower that feeling and demand my attention. It remains one of my all time favourite stereo images.

 

[katbel]

Congratulations to all, including mollyc for judging all the photos, but most of all for choosing this theme:
honoured by the 3rd place ?

 

[AllergyDoc]

Thanks to @mollyc for running the contest this week and for the nod. Now off to find an interesting topic…

 

[Clix Pix]

Congratulations, everyone! I couldn't quite wrap my head around the theme and didn't want to do just a literal interpretation of "voice," so that was one barrier to participation and aside from that I've been fairly busy shooting in a month-long daily Octoberfest, so that was another reason to sit this one out.

 

[AllergyDoc]

New contest up.

 

[mollyc]

I'm actually kind of surprised this topic gave so many pause. Voice is something that I personally feel very strongly about. I did not understand it for many years, nor even really know what it was (so from that perspective I can see how this might be a stumbling block for others), but once I put in some work and studied myself and my work, my images became a lot stronger and more consistent.

I know not many of you are on instagram, but if you ever scroll through someone's feed and it looks and feels very cohesive, that is an example of voice. Or think of your favorite artists (photo and otherwise). Most likely these people have a very specific look or feel to their work. Authors, also. And singers. Architects. The strongest artists of any genre are unmistakeable in their voice. For photographers, it might be they gravitate to a few specific focal lengths; they may stick to a single kind of lighting setup for portraits. They may do composite work. They may shoot all b&w, or all bright colors. But if you were to take a sample of their work, all the pieces would have 2-3 similar underlying themes, regardless of subject matter. A fine art photographer is unlikely to have any documentary work in their portfolio. (And by portfolio, I mean images they compile together for a website, a gallery, a showing, etc. It doesn't mean they don't know how to shoot documentary, just that it isn't in their regular lineup.)

I probably should have led with this to give a better setup, but oh well. Regardless, thanks for following along. ?

 

[akash.nu]

I know not many of you are on instagram, but if you ever scroll through someone's feed and it looks and feels very cohesive, that is an example of voice.

I know I’m taking this out of context but since I’m on Instagram and you’re on my followers list, not bragging, what do you think the voice of my page is? Or actually does my page have any voice?!

 

[mollyc]

I know I’m taking this out of context but since I’m on Instagram and you’re on my followers list, not bragging, what do you think the voice of my page? Or actually does my page have any voice?!

Yes! I was actually surprised by your entry this week because it doesn't fit what I have in my head about you. It wasn't a bad entry, and I can see how street photography might fit in, but most of the images I've seen of yours here and on IG are more nature themed than street.

For you, I would label your work with "adventure, wonder, scenic." Or something similar. You have a lost of really vast landscapes, and I know you travel often, but sometimes you do stop and find small details like a flower or a mailbox, etc. I hope that helps some. ?

 

[katbel]

I'm actually kind of surprised this topic gave so many pause. Voice is something that I personally feel very strongly about. I did not understand it for many years, nor even really know what it was (so from that perspective I can see how this might be a stumbling block for others), but once I put in some work and studied myself and my work, my images became a lot stronger and more consistent.

I know not many of you are on instagram, but if you ever scroll through someone's feed and it looks and feels very cohesive, that is an example of voice. Or think of your favorite artists (photo and otherwise). Most likely these people have a very specific look or feel to their work. Authors, also. And singers. Architects. The strongest artists of any genre are unmistakeable in their voice. For photographers, it might be they gravitate to a few specific focal lengths; they may stick to a single kind of lighting setup for portraits. They may do composite work. They may shoot all b&w, or all bright colors. But if you were to take a sample of their work, all the pieces would have 2-3 similar underlying themes, regardless of subject matter. A fine art photographer is unlikely to have any documentary work in their portfolio. (And by portfolio, I mean images they compile together for a website, a gallery, a showing, etc. It doesn't mean they don't know how to shoot documentary, just that it isn't in their regular lineup.)

I probably should have led with this to give a better setup, but oh well. Regardless, thanks for following along. ?

I don’t have Instagram, but I did exactly what you are suggesting: sometimes we don’t know ourselves in all details till you pause and think it about because someone asked you.

 

[mollyc]

I don’t have Instagram, but I did exactly what you are suggesting: sometimes we don’t know ourselves in all details till you pause and think it about because someone asked you.

I really think everyone has a voice, but most don't take the time to figure it out. My husband is not artistic at all, but he still has a "voice" that directs him on the kinds of clothes he wears, the music and tv likes, etc. Only (some) artists actually try to put labels on it. ?

My words are "quiet, luminous, nostalgic."

 

[Clix Pix]

Actually, in thinking about this, the photo that I posted today in the POTD thread might be considered kind of reflecting my "voice," in that when I began shooting it and then worked on it in post-processing, I was excited about it, felt an enthusiasm about it that I don't always feel with some of the images I shoot and post. In analyzing this concept a bit, I suppose it pleases me not so much because it's technically perfect, as it is not, but rather because it has an air of mystery about it, a bit of unexpectedness and unpredictability, and also because it uses light, shadow, reflection, color and a balance of bokeh and area of distinct focus.....

I especially like shooting closeups and macros, and this image certainly fits right into that slot. I also like experimenting, seeing what I can do with a subject. In this instance, I actually didn't use my beloved 90mm macro or another macro lens, but a lens, the 135mm f/1.8, which would be normally used for other purposes. Why? Because the camera and lens were on the dining table, having recently been used to shoot something for the Octoberfest project, and for that we are limited to up to three prime lenses. Since it is supposed to be a kind of learning experience as well I deliberately did NOT choose any of my macro lenses to use during this project. I was about to put away the camera and lens, having finished shooting and processing that day's image, and those two items which appear in today's POTD submission were on the table, waiting for me to experiment with them and my macro lens when I got around to it, but the light and reflections (it was a dark day and I had the overhead light on) caught my attention and I thought, "hm....." and slipped a piece of shiny posterboard on the table, arranged the subjects and began firing away....

Is there a distinction between one's "voice" and one's "style"? To me somehow one's "voice" suggests that one is shooting something or choosing to shoot something which in some way is meaningful to them, something which excites them. Style would be more about how the subject is shot? It may not necessarily reflect the photographer's inner emotions at the time of selection, shooting or post-processing, but may demonstrate a specific way of doing these things? One may absolutely love a subject that they're shooting or they may be neutral to it but they potentially shoot it and similar subjects in the same sort of way? Seems to me that this would come into play somehow, too. I don't think there is much consistency in how or what I shoot, since I like to shoot different things and approach them in different ways.

 

[Laird Knox]

@Laird Knox: I know this image definitely represents your voice because I see you post similar images over time. I love that it is so unique to you and how you shoot.

Thanks for the concept.

There were so many images I considered. This one is from a series called "Trip-Tychs." The images were all displayed as diptychs, triptychs, and quads. This was before dividing the image up.

There are several elements in this image that make up that voice. First there is the color balance. I often shoot nighttime scenes with a tungsten white balance. This often makes the sky go that neon blue. I didn't realize that I was doing it until somebody said they had seen one of my photos and recognized my style. My style? OK, I see that now.

Then there's the light painting, although it is minimal in this image. Just a fixed light inside the tower. I do a lot of light painting at night and use vibrant colors that fit with the neon blue sky. My Protomachine flashlight is always on hand when I'm shooting. I love that the power scale is in exposure equivalents. It makes changing the exposure easy. It is providing the tungsten source in the image. Being able to easily set the color and brightness lets you focus on the vision.

Color was also a consideration in the "Trip-Tych" series. All of the images were shot under moonlight with the tungsten white balance. They also all used the tungsten light source. This gave me some nice play between the cold blues and the warm glow.

Where the trip in trip-tych comes from is that every panorama was intentionally setup to be wrong. The tripod was set at an angle so the camera would not make a level sweep across the scene. In this image you are looking at nearly 270 degrees of sweep. This built in error is what produces the undulating waves in the image. Obviously the ground wasn't really like that. Then when stitching the images together I would often use different projection instead of the standard cylindrical projection. This would exaggerate the built in error.

I often like to break the rules and this image contained many of those infractions.

Here is how the final image was displayed as a diptych:

 

[mollyc]

Actually, in thinking about this, the photo that I posted today in the POTD thread might be considered kind of reflecting my "voice," in that when I began shooting it and then worked on it in post-processing, I was excited about it, felt an enthusiasm about it that I don't always feel with some of the images I shoot and post. In analyzing this concept a bit, I suppose it pleases me not so much because it's technically perfect, as it is not, but rather because it has an air of mystery about it, a bit of unexpectedness and unpredictability, and also because it uses light, shadow, reflection, color and a balance of bokeh and area of distinct focus.....

I especially like shooting closeups and macros, and this image certainly fits right into that slot. I also like experimenting, seeing what I can do with a subject. In this instance, I actually didn't use my beloved 90mm macro or another macro lens, but a lens, the 135mm f/1.8, which would be normally used for other purposes. Why? Because the camera and lens were on the dining table, having recently been used to shoot something for the Octoberfest project, and for that we are limited to up to three prime lenses. Since it is supposed to be a kind of learning experience as well I deliberately did NOT choose any of my macro lenses to use during this project. I was about to put away the camera and lens, having finished shooting and processing that day's image, and those two items which appear in today's POTD submission were on the table, waiting for me to experiment with them and my macro lens when I got around to it, but the light and reflections (it was a dark day and I had the overhead light on) caught my attention and I thought, "hm....." and slipped a piece of shiny posterboard on the table, arranged the subjects and began firing away....

Is there a distinction between one's "voice" and one's "style"? To me somehow one's "voice" suggests that one is shooting something or choosing to shoot something which in some way is meaningful to them, something which excites them. Style would be more about how the subject is shot? It may not necessarily reflect the photographer's inner emotions at the time of selection, shooting or post-processing, but may demonstrate a specific way of doing these things? One may absolutely love a subject that they're shooting or they may be neutral to it but they potentially shoot it and similar subjects in the same sort of way? Seems to me that this would come into play somehow, too. I don't think there is much consistency in how or what I shoot, since I like to shoot different things and approach them in different ways.

This is only my own opinion, you could read more researched thoughts about this, but I would say that voice encompasses the way that you set up your image: your optics, your framing, your approach to the scene. You can take 20 photographers to the same location and ask them to shoot 36 frames, and no photographer would approach the job the same way. People would take different lenses, different cameras (crop/full frame/four-thirds, etc). They would stand at different distances to the same subject, some would frame high, some would frame low. How people approach this task encompasses their "voice" and what images they come away with.

For instance, when we went to NYC in August, without initially realizing it, I kept finding the flowers. I expected to take city shots, but instead I kept shooting the flowers within the city (unfortunately this was with my film camera, which ended up having focus issues, so most of those images were never shared here because they didn't come out well). But for me, flowers are a huge part of my voice, so it shouldn't be surprising that I found them in the middle of Manhattan.

Style would be akin to how you process it. What presets you use, how much contrast, which filmstock you choose. I tend to buy a lot of Vera Bradley bags (again with the flowers). The fabric styles from 20+ years ago when I bought my first bag are not the same as they are today, but the underlying theme of the bag style and fabrics is the same. The "voice" of VB hasn't necessarily changed in 20 years, but the "style" has. People often go back to re-edit old work, and I think that is where voice doesn't necessarily change (you might still approach the set up the same) but the editing style does change.

Of course, some styles are longer lasting than others. And in some instances voice and style are intertwined tightly in a way that cannot easily be separated. For instance, most film wedding photographers I follow only shoot Portra 400 rated at 200, because that film has a certain look when shot that way. In this way their "editing style" (film choice) is tied to their overall end result, which shapes their voice. Jeff gave a great example in the post above about his editing choices causing that punchy blue and the wavy panorama, and those are also part of his voice in that way.

But for the most part, I think voice and style are related, and strong companions, often wedded together, but still separate entities that must be considered individually.

 

[Clix Pix]

Thanks, Molly! This is definitely a thought-provoking topic! I agree with you that one's photographic and/or creative "voice" and style are related, but also indeed separate entities at the same time. This deserves more exploration on my part, now that my curiosity has been aroused.

An image that I shot today for the Octoberfest project was one which was done rather hurriedly, as I wanted to get it shot, processed and shared on NikonCafe before the deadline of 1:00 PM, which is when I was going to be sitting at the computer following today's Apple Event. In the end it was definitely one with a certain "look" that is not uncommon for me to shoot: soft, colorful bokeh in the background with a subject which was selectively sharp in focus. The 50mm f/1.2 lens was pressed into service for this (it, the 135mm and the 20mm are the three primes I am restricted to using for this project).

I used my trusty "studio" in the master bedroom, with the windows there providing not only plenty of natural light but also colors in the background which the wide-open DOF blurred out into bokeh while focusing on one part of the subject. Got the desired results, was able to process the image and share it in plenty of time to prepare for the Apple event.....but it definitely did not give me the same thrill of discovery and exploration that I'd experienced previously with the image that I shared today that I'd shot a couple of days ago. I think one reason is that I was feeling rushed and so didn't have the time to really explore the subject and play around with it for a while, try different things with it, and another is that it felt very easy, very familiar, not dissimilar to what I've done before over the years....

So in that regard, I would guess that what I shared today as Day 18 in the Octoberfest project (you guys here will see it in tomorrow's POTD thread) to me feels more like something shot in my "style," if you will, rather than necessarily being wholly also in my "voice." ??

This overall topic is definitely thought-provoking! "Voice"...."Style".....Personal traits, interests and life experiences informing and affecting one or both approaches to one's potential photographic subjects and how they would be chosen, shot and with which gear and why as well as how..... Sitting here thinking about what I'd be doing if I were away from home on a visit to some other location, such as NYC or even downtown DC -- what would be the subjects calling out to me, demanding my attention, and what lenses would I be using to capture them, why and how? Food for thought here......