I love photography. In fact, I truly enjoy pretty much every aspect of it, from planning to shooting to post-processing to finding an outlet for my work. I love it so much that I spend a lot of time just playing with it. Not really creating super cool art necessarily, but just plain having fun.
For example, I'm doing a lot of photographs with my iPhone and even started a Project 365 where I'm only doing black and white photographs taken, edited, and uploaded from the iPhone. But I also like people and I enjoy portraiture, that's why I started the People of the Globe project. And I also enjoy the outdoors and although I don't do traditional landscape photography, I do like shooting landscapes. I'm also fond of street photography and like going out on shooting days in the city to see what I can find.
So, what does this mean? Does it mean I don't have a style and I must pick one thing and stick with it?
I was reading a post by Zack Arias where he suggested you show not just your best work only, but only the work you want to be known for and do in the future. He says "Let your work determine your clients. Don’t let your clients determine your work". I get it, and I do agree with him. But I don't think I like it.
Why do we have to get pigeon-holed? I follow the work of a lot of photographers and see this happening all the time. They produce a unique series and they're suddenly known just for that. It becomes their look. Their signature. And when they start producing other work that's too far away from their look, people think they're going crazy. I remember listening to Dave Hill in a podcast (can't remember which) where he said he's tried to present different treatments to his clients and they respond with something like "can you make it look more Dave Hill-ish?".
But why? I get that clients are after a certain look for a specific ad, but to pigeon hole the artist just because he's managed to produce a very unique look is not the way it should be. Have you seen Dave Hill's black and white work? It's beautiful, and very different than his signature series.
Anyway, I've been thinking about this for a while now and yesterday I read a post by Chase Jarvis where he basically says just go out there and do something, share it with the world, and see what happens. He calls it Create>Share>Sustain. Meaning do whatever you need to do to sustain your art (wait tables, keep your day job, whatever), but keep creating and sharing as you go along. It doesn't matter if it's crap. You'll learn and grow until it sustains itself. I like this. He's an inspirational guy.
But here we have 2 different ways of thinking, and I get them both. Two different opinions from very good photographers I highly respect and follow their blogs. Zack is saying, if you want to be a successful photographer, pick your niche, perfect it, and only show stuff that's about that niche. Yep, it makes sense. But it's limiting. On the other hand, there's Chase saying, just do whatever you feel like, be creative, don't be afraid to mess up.
I've been struggling with this for a while. As I said at the beginning, I love photography and have a bunch of stuff on a number of genres, all very different. Should I share it all? Should I hide most and only show what I want to be known for?
I still don't know.
Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 7:25PM | in 
A couple of weeks ago I received my new Panasonic GF1 with the beautiful 20mm f1.7 pancake lens. I've been playing around with the camera trying to figure out all the controls and settings, but I hadn't really done any proper shooting with it until a few days ago when had the opportunity to photograph Jess.
;)
