Do you need to be consistent with your photography?
Is consistency important and if so, to what extent? Some photographers want to make sure that they always shoot consistently with the same camera, use the same focal length, presets, filters and soft release buttons (or whatever) in order to maintain a signature look. Is that necessary?
The consensus, the default answer, seems to favour the superficial consistency and I’m not arguing against that. I’m asking because I personally tend to be all over the place and sometimes wonder whether that’s hurting my photography or adding value to it, perhaps in a form of diversity.
How to find balance between consistency and the slippery slope of boring mannerism?
Within a project I see the value of sticking with a certain technique, but I know plenty of photographers who shoot with whatever they can get their hands on and changing their approach every ten minutes, while still maintaining a signature look. How is that possible?
Can the signature look come from something else than the obvious choice of a lens or a film stock? Can the common nominator be a philosophical or artistic point of view? Or the subject matter itself? Can inconsistency be the consistency?
The technique and tools should be subsidiary to the goal (vision) and not the other way around. I don’t understand the phrases: “I only shoot film” or “I’m a Fuji X-photographer” or anyhing similar.
If you’re building something, would you insist using only a hammer? Okay, that’s a bit of a fallacy, but I just want to make a point. If you’re interested in building things, doesn’t it make sense to have different tools to choose from to whatever fits the purpose? I suppose this boils down to the question whether you are interested in multiple things or just something very specific. Some people find joy in doing the same thing over and over again, “mastering” their craft. Most photographers seem to be perfectly happy sticking with a tried and true technique, and there’s, of course, absolutely nothing wrong with that. Changing one’s mind, being experimental, evolving, letting go, accepting new approaches and being diverse should also be just as ok too. I cannot imagine someone critiquing Mike Patton for being experimental and having interest in many genres of music. On the other hand, I can’t quite understand artists who seem to release the same record over and over again.
At one point (circa 2016—2019) I felt important to label myself as a film photographer. Not only that, but a 35mm black and white film photographer. A Leica M6 photographer. Dear fucking god. I was so invested into operating under that profile that I tried to force my specific technique to everything, even though it was clearly hurting my photography. Sure it was consistent, but with what expense? Having all my shots looking pretty much the same (sometimes even rather forced) and eventually boring myself to death? It was a phase and after few years of exploring it, I didn’t have anything more to offer to it. After developing a self-repeating mannerism, I was happy to recognise it and move onto the next thing, rather than continuing to do it just for the sake of it.
Film photography was (and still is) trendy and I wanted to be a trendy film shooter. For some subject matters film was (still is) perfect, for others it just didn’t fit. For example, I eventually abandoned 35mm black and white film for my landscape work, even though I really wanted it to work, but 99% of the time, it just didn’t correspond with my vision. It was delusional and neurotic. Somehow I knew that, but I was a Leica M6 shooter, so I had to insist it. Stupid. My digital camera on the other hand seemed to fit the purpose just perfectly.
When I look back at my body of work, I don’t know whether I see that much of consistency. I don’t know whether that’s a good or bad. Or does it matter at all? If you ask Instagram algorithm, the answer is of course obvious, but that’s another topic.
