As an example, I used to plan trips to all the pretty places to take photos of all the same things everyone else takes photos of. I still do that–given the choice between Yosemite Valley and my day job, I hope you know what I would pick. But, no matter where I’m at, I look at the world differently. When I’m in Yosemite, I’m always looking underfoot for that interesting patter in the rock, or the way the pine cones are laying.

Is that a style? Not sure. But I do know I never did this 5, or even 2 years ago. That *is* evolution.

Using a familiar object is a wonderful way to bring perspective in such a situation — this driftwood works wonderfully for this image.

For this same reason I often enjoy knowing the camera, lens and/or focal length used for a photo because as a photographer that information provides some reference point for scale, distance and angle of view.

I’m sure in going through his work you’ll find that he explored many different avenues over the years. Creative people can’t help it. They’re always exploring.

I want to make sure I point out in this thread that I certainly don’t advocate getting into ruts or finding a formula that works and sticking with it. Just the opposite — I think it’s important to work with different subject matter and to try out different ways to approach them. That’s why I don’t particularly like the word ‘style’, and titled this post uniqueness. What’s commonly called ‘style’ can easily become an affectation and run counter to truly creative experimentation. On the other hand, your own true style, or uniqueness, will reveal itself through honest work, regardless of subject matter or so-called style, whether it be classic landscape or abstract or street photography or whatever. I hope that made sense.