# Jack of all trades style



## nerwin (Jul 24, 2015)

So I was reading an article by DIYPhotography and thought it could make for an interesting discussion that could be useful.



> *3. BEING A JACK OF ALL TRADES (MASTER OF NONE)*
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying different genres of photography, finding your niche, and experimenting. In fact I encourage it! But as you do it, begin honing in on a genre and then a style within that genre that you love. If you’re trying to get your work noticed, your work has to look like YOUR work. Far too often I click on a profile and find a little bit of landscape, a little bit of portraiture, and a little bit of macro (among other things). There’s nothing to latch onto. Better to find a genre or style you love and stick to that, develop it, get GREAT at it, then move on/evolve when you feel like you’ve outgrown it. It takes time to explore and develop your abilities as a particular type of photographer; don’t sell yourself short by jumping around like some crazed grasshopper. *Rule of Thumb*: Don’t be a jack of all trades when it comes to photography. There _are_ a few photographers I’ve seen who can pull it off, but the vast majority end up a master of none.



Read the full article here: 5 Common Mistakes Beginners Make When They Share Photos Online - DIY Photography

I'm not sure if I agree with this. What's wrong with photographing everything? I don't have one particular genre per se..I just like bringing my camera with me and taking pictures of things I find interesting. I don't have one style. I don't think there is anything wrong with being a "jack of all trades".  Isn't that called being a photographer?

I understand what the author is talking about, but I just don't think it's for everyone. I've followed a few photographers on Flickr where I fell in love with their work, but after a while the photos were just the same..sure maybe different subjects, but same genre and editing style and it just made me lose interest. I like a variety. Everyone has different tastes and there isn't anything wrong with that.

He pretty described my photostream perfectly, a little bit of landscape, cars, people, my cat, macro, etc...so what? Thats what I like it. Who knows..maybe that will change someday..but that hasn't happened to Thomas Hawk yet. He photographs everything and I mean everything. Maybe that is my niche.

Everyone is different. I say, photograph whatever you like and whatever makes you happy, afterall  you are the photographer.

Happy Friday!


----------



## otherprof (Jul 24, 2015)

nerwin said:


> So I was reading an article by DIYPhotography and thought it could make for an interesting discussion that could be useful.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The first time I showed a friend a bunch of my photos (not a group or a collection) she replied with some surprise, "You've got no style!"  She did not mean that as a put down, but a description diverse genres she was looking at. I'm glad "I got no style," because I enjoy so many types of photography, even if I sound like the Rodney Dangerfield of pics. By the way, a few of those photos wound up on her walls.  It's fine to specialize in birds or portraits or landscapes or street, and I love looking at all those genres on the Forum, but every once in a while I want to stand up  and proudly shout, "I ain't got no style!"


----------



## floatingby (Jul 24, 2015)

If you want to do photography as a profession, then I would tend to agree that it is a good thing to specialize in one area, and, by extension, make that specialty more representative of your work.

Make no sense for hobbyist thought, completely irrational in fact. You do a hobby because you enjoy it, because it bring pleasure in your life, so what others think of it is irrelevant. Photograph what you want to, share if you want to and don't if you don't want to, the only value is that it bring you joy.


----------



## soufiej (Jul 24, 2015)

nerwin said:


> So I was reading an article by DIYPhotography and thought it could make for an interesting discussion that could be useful.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Did you always do exactly what your mother told you to do?

You know the author of this article even less.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 24, 2015)

The point about making your photography recognizable as yours is a valid point if a photographer wants to do something particular with his/her photographs (whatever that may be, print sales, freelance work, etc.) but not necessarily if it's a hobby or you're a photographer just because you enjoy it.

Then at the end I see that he's an editor at 500px, no wonder. I wish people would read the Terms on sites like that...

Now I see... this article was _shared_ by DIY Photography - from the 500px site. So what he's saying to do is most likely what _that_ website wants people to do, because they want photos that are usable that they can resell and sublicense etc. etc. So, maybe just ignore that 'advice'...


----------



## Derrel (Jul 24, 2015)

The author is DL Cade, editor in chief of 500px, and he is directly advising the _people he hopes will feed his site_ with _tens of thousands of free photo_s every single week...


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 24, 2015)

You seem to be confounding content with style.
When I see people who shoot a lot of lots of different things, they often seem to have no particular 'style' because they are essentially just pointing at what they see that is interesting at the moment and taking the picture - as it is.
People who go further than that are using their own particular feelings about the situation to be expressed in how they take and edit the picture.
Typically people with such specific ideas develop their own very specific ways of shooting and that often limits the content to that which fits the style.
For example, Chris (Binga) has a very distinct style that probably wouldn't work for landscapes although it might for wildlife. The content is less important than the expression of it.
Sometimes style overwhelms content like much overdone HDR or pointless street photography.

My feeling is that people who shoot 'everything' often shoot nothing specific very, very well.


----------



## nerwin (Jul 24, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> You seem to be confounding content with style.
> When I see people who shoot a lot of lots of different things, they often seem to have no particular 'style' because they are essentially just pointing at what they see that is interesting at the moment and taking the picture - as it is.
> People who go further than that are using their own particular feelings about the situation to be expressed in how they take and edit the picture.
> Typically people with such specific ideas develop their own very specific ways of shooting and that often limits the content to that which fits the style.
> ...



If that's the case, then what I'm doing is a waste of time. Maybe photography isn't for me. Hmm, something I'll have to think about.


----------



## waday (Jul 24, 2015)

Derrel said:


> The author is DL Cade, editor in chief of 500px, and he is directly advising the _people he hopes will feed his site_ with _tens of thousands of free photo_s every single week...


I hadn't noticed that, but it makes so much sense now. There were SO MANY references to 500px.


----------



## nerwin (Jul 24, 2015)

waday said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > The author is DL Cade, editor in chief of 500px, and he is directly advising the _people he hopes will feed his site_ with _tens of thousands of free photo_s every single week...
> ...



Yeah...makes sense now. I don't know much about 500px but now I know how they operate. Doesn't sound like a good place to share photos. (in my opinion).


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 24, 2015)

nerwin said:


> If that's the case, then what I'm doing is a waste of time. Maybe photography isn't for me. Hmm, something I'll have to think about.



A former member here once said that many people like cameras much more than they care about photography.

There's nothing wrong with taking pictures and doing it well - if that's all you want.
Then it's a hobby like fishing or making models; it fills time, gives one something fun to do and fills a need to fiddle around with technology things and conquer obstacles.

There is a group of people who see photography as their mechanism for saying something; they see a camera as a kind of complex pencil or paintbrush. a tool to enable their means of expression.

My son writes.
He doesn't do it for money, he has an excellent high-paying job but the idea of not writing is inconceivable for him. He writes for a couple of sites and writes some long form stuff.
I feel that way about taking pictures.  However bad or good I am, the idea of a future without taking pictures for my own sake is frightening.


----------



## Designer (Jul 24, 2015)

nerwin said:


> If that's the case, then what I'm doing is a waste of time. Maybe photography isn't for me.


Are you trying to make your photography fit with somebody else's concept?  If so, why?


----------



## nerwin (Jul 24, 2015)

Designer said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > If that's the case, then what I'm doing is a waste of time. Maybe photography isn't for me.
> ...



no, trying to do my own thing but confused on which direction I should go. I don't think there is a right or wrong way to photography, so I guess I'm just going to shoot what I like and if some people don't like the fact I ain't got no style, then so be it.


----------



## runnah (Jul 24, 2015)

Fun fact: The whole saying is *"Jack of all trades, master of none, though often is better than master of one."
*
Not as insulting if you say the whole things. I am proud to be able to do all types of photography well.


----------



## nerwin (Jul 24, 2015)

runnah said:


> Fun fact: The whole saying is *"Jack of all trades, master of none, though often is better than master of one."
> *
> Not as insulting if you say the whole things. I am proud to be able to do all types of photography well.



Wow, I haven't heard the whole saying in a long time. Thanks for that.


----------



## Designer (Jul 24, 2015)

nerwin said:


> .. the fact I ain't got no style..


I think I see the problem.

Why do you think your art must exhibit a certain "style"?

Did you read somewhere that in order for art to be valid it has to have a "style"?

Spend less time reading and more time making art.


----------



## runnah (Jul 24, 2015)

As far as style goes I like to refer back to my youth when I was a hardcore snowboarder. Style was a huge thing in the sport, but to get style you had to learn a trick to begin with and you had to practice it a lot. Once you had it learned fully then you could start adding you're only personal "style" to it.


----------



## nerwin (Jul 24, 2015)

Designer said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > .. the fact I ain't got no style..
> ...



Yes, I'm beginning to realize that haha.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 24, 2015)

nerwin said:


> no, trying to do my own thing but confused on which direction I should go. I don't think there is a right or wrong way to photography, so I guess I'm just going to shoot what I like and if some people don't like the fact I ain't got no style, then so be it.



My basic thought here is simple, I shoot what I like.  I don't try to market the end product and as such the entire original article fell into the "moot point" category for me.

For those who do try to market the end results, well they might find some of that information applies.  But as a dedicated amateur it simply doesn't apply to me.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 24, 2015)

The author DL Cade wants people who will SHARE their images on his site, 500px....meaning peoople who will willingly upload their work to HIS SITE, for FREE. Make no mistake--there are some nice images on 500px, soley based on volume and the way the world works and the fact that photography is a popular hobby enjoyed by millions of people, but 500px is guilty of being one of the most homogeneous/plastic/oversaturated/shiny picture sites on the web. It thrives not on originality, as much as on providing a steady diet of massively over-Photoshopped images. If it were a restaurant, it would be McDonald's.

Really skilled, innovative, visionary, or even just plain old "good" photographers are NOT giving away images as grist for 500px: no, skilled photographers are showing their images on their OWN sites, not uploading them into the vast sea that is 500px.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 24, 2015)

OP,
Stop worrying about validating how you do things by someone else's standards.
You can shoot a million different kinds of things in a million different ways and it doesn't make any difference to anyone but you.
The author of that piece has his own opinions and it doesn't make any difference why he says this. If  what he says resonates with you, great. If not, no biggie.

Eventually you will decide what you like to do for yourself.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jul 24, 2015)

It's ironic that he talks about having photography that stands out as yours when most of the photographers' work on 500px is indiscernible from everyone else's on the site, including the editor's picks.

Photos of sexy light-skinned women retouched to perfection, oversaturated ultra-wide angle landscapes, birds shot with an ultra-telephoto, and foreign men with lots of age lines with clarity cranked to max.

That's literally the entire 500px community.

Finding a niche is great, but don't force yourself into one because of a 500px advertisement.


----------



## Dave442 (Jul 24, 2015)

Don't take a point from someone's top five list as a reason to give up photography.  I have even seen other "experts" give just the opposite opinion on that point.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 24, 2015)

Blah blah blah. People overthink this crap.

Shoot what interests you. Don't work to find "what you like", "your genre" or "your style". These are not things that you plan or direct. These are things that come out as an artifact of who you are and what you have to say.

What is your voice?
Who are your influences?

Really, who the hell cares?

What matters is the work you produce. If you are true to your own artistic desires, your work will speak as a body all by itself. Let the critics sit around and argue over your style. Then you can laugh, ignore them, and go take some more pictures.


----------



## dennybeall (Jul 24, 2015)

If you have a photojournalism approach your style may be to capture the scene as real as possible and tell the story with one photo. You as a photographer won't have a personal style that you force onto a photo such as always in HDR or leaning to yellow or totally blemish free skin or always bokah to the max. The shot will dictate what style is needed.
If you want to be an artist that's perfectly fine just don't expect everybody to want to be one also!
And understand NO matter what you do NOT EVERYBODY will like your work!!!


----------



## Fred Berg (Jul 26, 2015)

The beauty of photography is it lets you do your own thing, so why do anyone else's?


----------



## EIngerson (Jul 26, 2015)

There is no direction in photography. Take photos of what you want to take photos of. Don't stress the small stuff.


----------



## acparsons (Jul 26, 2015)

All genres, all the time. I love shooting everything.


----------



## sashbar (Jul 26, 2015)

nerwin said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to be confounding content with style.
> ...




This is basically the same as with sports. Let's say you are doing it for yourself and you like to play a bit of soccer, a bit of basketball, do a bit of swimming, some cycling and then in the evening you play a bit of poker sometimes with friends or pump iron in the gym. What are the chances that you will be as good as a basketball player, or a swimmer or a bodybuilder? Pretty slim, and even that sounds optimistic.  Is it a waste of time then? Not at all, it is good for your health, good for your mind, you meet friends, girls are all yours, and doing sports is better than taking drugs. You spend you time really well.

Now, if you have any ambitions to excel, you have to specialise. You need to choose what you like most and what you are best at. You need to see what possibilities are there for you in any sport. Then you need to decide and  concentrate on it, devote your time to learn specifics, practice and master your chosen sport or, if we talk about photography, your genre.  Great thing about this approach is that you can develop further and have a feeling of really achieving something, and it will boost your self-confidence in other walks of life, even if it is still just a hobby.

By the end of the day it is all about your ambitions, about what you want to achieve and about what you want from your hobby, whether you like the process or the result. Probably it is also down to a character, some people are more perfectionists than others and they usually specialise.  Others have more hedonistic approach and they want to bite every cake on the table. For a hobbyist both ways are perfectly OK in my view.

As for this old Jack of all trades vs master of one dilemma, the truth, in my opinion, as always, lies somewhere in between. Doing everything without concentrating on anything is as bad as narrowing you field of interest too much and never trying to broaden your horizons. Where exactly this "in between" lies depends on your sphere of interest.  In photography, in my opinion it is somewhere closer to being master of one.

If you are mastering your favourite genre and sometimes venture into other genres to enrich your photographic arsenal, you will be OK.


----------



## sashbar (Jul 26, 2015)

dennybeall said:


> If you have a photojournalism approach your style may be to capture the scene as real as possible and tell the story with one photo. You as a photographer won't have a personal style that you force onto a photo such as always in HDR or leaning to yellow or totally blemish free skin or always bokah to the max. The shot will dictate what style is needed.
> If you want to be an artist that's perfectly fine just don't expect everybody to want to be one also!
> And understand NO matter what you do NOT EVERYBODY will like your work!!!




That is not entirely correct I am afraid.  A lot of pros in this genre (photojournalism) have their more or less distinct style. When you look closely at how Reuters, AP and Getty photogs cover events, you will see the differences in how they use background, how they frame things, how they use foreground, close ups, how they catch emotional aspects, what exactly they concentrate on, etc etc.

More to it, these days many photojournalists working for top agencies incorporate street photography aesthetics and tricks into their images where it is possible. I looked through literally hundreds and hundreds of images from Greece recently, mainly Aphens, it was about the people in the times of financial crisis in Greece, and I was amazed how often agency reporters used street photography technique of juxtaposition and some other formalistic approaches developed by street photogs, that were quite alien to photojournalism some time ago.

One example that I would have posted here if not the rights issue was one recent Reuters photo of Obama at the memorial in Nairobi which made my jaw drop. The photog, instead of just reporting the event, clearly went for geometry of the monument as leading lines and juxtaposed a small distant Obama against a big bodyguard on the forefront and the whole aesthetics of the image had "street photography" written all over it. A great unusual, even controversial photo of the President. No wonder it was chosen over dozens of others.

There are many instances when photoreporters simply have no time and choice and do things mechanically, then it all looks quite similar. But as soon as they have some time and freedom, you immediately see different approaches. I would even go as far as saying that Getty and Reuters have slightly different styles . In so many cases I was able to guess - this is a Getty shot.  Or, it is probably Reuters. But that is also down to their editors who select the images.

As for HDR or leaning to yellow - these things have nothing to do with style, these are technicalities.


----------



## sashbar (Jul 26, 2015)

nerwin said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Fun fact: The whole saying is *"Jack of all trades, master of none, though often is better than master of one."
> ...




BTW the phrase initially came (probably late XVI century) from the pigeon Latin "Johannes factotum", which means John-do-it-all. Later it transformed into "Jack of all trades" and was used in a positive way. The ironic "master of none" was added later and all this phrase became dismissive. "Though often is better than master of one" was added centuries later. Actually there were several similar attempts, like "certainly better than master of one". But all these additions did not stick, because the phrase became too long and boring.


----------



## sashbar (Jul 26, 2015)

I just checked and it appears this phrase has an equivalent in many many languages.  I like Spanish "An ocean of knowledge is inch deep" and Lithuanian "One can not s**t under every bush".


----------



## Derrel (Jul 26, 2015)

"Listicals" from clickbait authors are not serious think pieces...and the web is increasingly filled with the crap these site authors spew almost daily...pieces designed to get people to CLICK! Quick, easy, one-hour, flimsy *listicals*...


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 29, 2015)

I grew up shooting all kinds of things that I thought were interesting, didn't really matter what it was at the time, but it was all just practice, playing with light, really very general stuff. I shot a lot of sports, mostly football, and still consider shooting sports as the toughest field to be really good at. I've done a lot as a photojournalist, which by some standards is the same as a "jack of all trades" only the good ones, at good at most and great at others.  Being a good photographer is understanding how light works, how content in an image makes the image.  I've been helping out a guy for a few weeks now, he likes sports, so he shoots football as he knows that's where he'll find me, but he hasn't got a clue about light. I explained a few things to him and what he should look for, I'm pretty sure it's helped.

Two weeks ago I hired a very good glamour photographer, that has also  been shooting football for 15  years to cover a game for me. He gave me a disk with 1100 images, once I weeded out all the garbage, I was left with 96 images.  I was shocked.  Unfortunately I have hired him(before I got the disk) to cover another game next week, but will be having a chat about what I want. I'm guessing it was just a bad night for him, it happens.

There is nothing wrong with shooting a bit of everything, figuring out what you enjoy the most is key and then go in that direction. If it's a matter of wanting to become a full time professional, you have to look into the areas that are more stable for income, and that's not always going to be what you enjoy doing.  I have a new grandson, been shooting all kinds of images, better than the majority of baby photographers out there, a friend suggested I try selling that side as well as the sports. The thing about that was it was done without a studio, in the house, candid pictures and they were done for me. It wasn't any different from shooting sports, it still came down to the light and content. The basic requirement for a decent image.

I just take pictures


----------



## Forkie (Jul 29, 2015)

As a hobby, I think it's perfectly fine to photograph whatever and upload wherever, but if you want to start a photography business, you'll be much better off and will find more clients if you stick to a particular genre.

If you have photos of everything in your portfolio, people won't know what to hire you for, but if you have mastered a particular genre, say portraits or products, then people will know that if they need a product photographer or want a portrait done, they know to look for you.

If a wedding photographer fills their portfolio with loads of landscapes and macros and pet photos, people won;t know that he/she is a wedding photographer.

*EDIT: * Just to illustrate the bit about style.  There is a photographer I really like who only shoots portraits and has developed his lighting and editing style to the point where I can recognise his photos from a mile away, without seeing his name.

Sean Archer 500px

The style refers to the look and feel of his portraits.  You can tell they've all been shot by the same photographer - that would not be possible if his collection was also full of landscapes and street shots because the style would not carry over to those genres.


----------

