Does photography follow style trends? Of course. Most everything does. Is that bad? Maybe. Maybe not. I think it depends on why you do it.
People follow trends
Whole industries exist to create changing trends. People follow the trends, because their influencers do and we want to maintain status by being like them.
Try to think of something that does not follow trends. Clothes fashions do. Hair fashions do. Car styling does. “Health” trends come and go. Advice on dating or raising kids or looking for jobs changes all the time. Home decor and even houses themselves change all the time.
Think about it: how valuable is it to the trend setting companies to have us follow style trends? They make billions because we frequently are compelled to change our wardrobe or home decor or technology products. If things were static, much more money would stay in our pocket rather than being transferred to theirs.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Photography does, too
Photography is not at all immune to this. Some of what we follow is technology improvements. And I am glad of much of that. We now have mirrorless cameras, high resolution sensors, better software editing tools, improved printers, and much more.
I am not a Luddite where it comes to improved products.
But the work we create may also vary with drifting waves of style trends. Much of what we see, especially online, is people following a popular style or copying what a respected influencer does. At various times we have seen lots of black & white with crushed blacks reminiscent of Ansel Adams. Or brash pop art treatments in the style of Andy Warhol. Or weirdly colored cross processing giving a simulated film effect.
There are whole libraries and applications available to change our digital images to look like your favorite film. The limitations and distortions are sought after to recapture aspects of some remembered “good old days” of photography.
And remember the garish results when HDR first became popular? I’m glad that wave passed quickly. Actually, it did not pass, it’s just that we have better technology allowing us to use it, when necessary, without looking fake.
Lately, highly processed “high tech” looks are in vogue. We have great tools now to increase sharpening and contrast far beyond what used to could be done. We have AI to remove defects or elements we don’t want. Or to add any elements we wish had been there. It. is natural to overdo it sometimes when experimenting with new capability.
It used to be that our camera and film determined the look we would get. Now that anything can be simulated or created, it brings up the question of what photographic art really is.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Is it supposed to be “true”?
Just today (as I was writing this) I read a rant by a photographer decrying that many people misuse clarity and texture controls and end up creating something that is not completely true to the original.
But what does it mean to be “true”? Must a photograph be an exact copy of the original scene? If that is your goal, prepare to be disappointed. An image cannot be the original scene. It is a 2-dimensional projection through a lens onto a light sensitive sensor, processed through lots of software, and printed on a substrate with inks that absorb light rather than emitting it. Each stage introduces faults and distortions.
At best, you could produce a print that you would say looks a lot like the original.
But is that the real goal? Or should we shoot to produce an artistic representation of our response to a scene?
If this is the goal, as it is for me, then who is to say it is a fault if our artistic creation departs from what the original was? These intentional departures sometimes follow popular trends.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Styles
If our image is an artistic creation, then introducing trending styles is OK. I don’t necessarily think it is good, but no one should say it is bad.
Some people feel compelled to follow the style du jour to be popular and get “likes” on social media. If that is your goal, do what you have to do.
If you are a wedding photographer, I can believe that what brides want is strongly influenced by what they see in the current issue of Bride’s magazine. Likewise, some commercial shooters must follow styles because that is what the advertisers want. Today. I can believe that tracking trends can improve your revenue.
Styles, by definition, are fashion. They are transient. In my view, they should not be the thing that defines your art. In the same way that you are not your clothes or the car you drive.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Follow your instincts
Our artistic vision develops over time as we have experiences and see great work and practice and try things. Styles are “high frequency” noise. They come and go rapidly and should not greatly influence the vision you are building.
Our artistic expression comes from something inside of us. Our particular way of seeing that is different from other people. Styles try to make everybody the same. But we should fight that normalizing force and strive to be ourselves.
So, experiment with styles when you want. Use it as a learning experience. Or maybe just for fun. “Try on” some and see if there is anything about them you want to keep. It should be guiltless. But don’t let the current prevailing style trend define your art. Trending styles are neither good or bad. Know that if you try to build your reputation on one, it will change out from under you soon.
And do not feel like a failure or left out if the art within you is not what you see the influencers pushing today. It is more important to be true to one’s self. Next week the style will change, but we must keep creating our art.



©Ed Schlotzhauer
©Ed Schlotzhauer
©Ed Schlotzhauer
©Ed Schlotzhauer
©Ed Schlotzhauer
©Ed Schlotzhauer
©Ed Schlotzhauer
©Ed Schlotzhauer
©Ed Schlotzhauer

©Ed Schlotzhauer
©Ed Schlotzhauer
©Ed Schlotzhauer
©Ed Schlotzhauer
©Ed Schlotzhauer
©Ed Schlotzhauer
©Ed Schlotzhauer