I really like the idea of being a photographer…. No labels at all, your portfolio defines what you prefer to shoot, but i’ll take pictures of what guides me to be creative. Whether that is a cat in a tree eating a bird, or a mother holding a child in a swing, or nature doing it’s best to throw every pastel color at the sky… . i’m still a photographer; My skill is the expert use of a camera (most types) to create a 2 dimensional image of a 3 dimensional object :). My artistry and superpower is using light and colour, or lack of colour in such a way to make that 2 dimensional image interesting and intriguing to others.

I just try to make images fun to look at :)

i refuse to label what i do… i shoot photos of things i find interesting… or attractive.

I just tell them, “I capture memories.” It’s a giant cliche, and I know it. But it’s not wrong, either.

I never set out to have a “style.” I edit the way I like and over many, many years I find myself with a rather documentarian approach to my images. I don’t like to over-edit, usually keeping to basic exposure adjustments rather than split tones or colour shifts.

My inspiration is someone who was a freelance photojournalist for over 60 years. He always shot natural light and resisted posing people or setting scenes.

That said, I don’t confine myself to this box or label and try to push my limits and experiment with different photographic techniques and editing styles.

Just asking everyone in the comments so I don’t have to make a pointless separate post.

As someone who’s only just recently started getting into photography, when can you call yourself a photographer? Not that it’s important or matters, but at what point can you confidently say “I am a photographer”? Does it need to be your means of income? Does it need to be accepted by a certain amount of people? This post just made me think!

If asked what my style is, my response would be something along the lines of…

“I just be snapping shit bruh”

I have a private folder of all my favorite photos and it’s a mix of everything. Portraits, landscape, architecture, abstract, etc. The only thing I can definitively say about myself is that I tend to favor wider focal lengths.

Something is editorial if it is a series of images that conveys a main theme. Most editorial sessions are fashion, usually consisting of 2 or more models, with multiple wardrobe and background changes, but shot in the same style and same theme as a “set.” I may be wrong, but editorial almost always refers to a set of photos.

Documentary and lifestyle are almost the same, but I feel documentary is grander in scale. Like lifestyle documents a person’s life, but documentary might capture a project or a team or an event of some kind. Something less personal and more public in interest. Kind of like the difference between a journal and a biography, if you will?

For me, I didn’t feel my work always fit in with fine art, and it didn’t always fit in with conceptual, so I just call myself a conceptual portrait photographer. It works. 😅

Something that I learned from Lindsay Adler in one of her workshops is to focus on 3-4 adjectives to describe your style. Mine is clean, colorful, and fun!

No matter what my subject is, my style comes through. So if I’m shooting portraits, they generally have a similar look. Street photography or families (though I shoot these less) is very similar. I am typically a portrait and fashion photographer, but my visual style is what ties them together.

Focus more on descriptors of the images themselves, rather than categories (documentary, lifestyle, etc). You might figure it out easier this way.