You know Gustavo, this is exactly why I think that the own style will be better recognized by other people, but not from the own that makes the image. When you, or me, or somebody at all holds the camera and tries to find out how to shoot some photo... we do that pretty much "automatic", in some sence, or don't we? I mean, of course we think and we question this and that, and what is better, and so on, but if we all have our own thinking about images, then we might as well get too many things for so usual, that at the end we are not as good in recognizing our own styles.
As about me, yes, you recognized that very well. I do like geometry and depth and perspective on images, and I use it so often when I am shooting. But so many opeople do that much much better than I do, and also did that ages before I started with photography. So, can I really speak of *my style"? Perhaps I am only imitating other people unconsciously - who knows? I think that I must reach a much greater degree of maturity before I can even dare to speak about "my style", but of course on the other hand nobody really knows the own style. I think you are right, we just follow our way to perceive some scene. Perhaps this is the best thing we could do, too.
Many many thanks for the nice comment, Dave! The lighting I also find OK except for the rather dark parts that don't really show much detail of anything. But then again, if they did, it would destroy the rest of the warm lighting, or so I guess.
Un estilo, es simplemente una forma personal y fundamentalmente reconocible por los otros, de hacer algo, y aunque vos simplemente tomes fotos al azar, y vos NO tomás fotos al azar..:-), yo reconozco algo particular en tu modo de hacerlas (el particular cuidado por la composición, las perspectivas al infinito, la presencia de la geometría, los POV que elegís, las escenas que elegís, las texturas y los colores de tus fotos, en fin muchas cosas...), cosas que me hacen reconocerlas antes incluso de leer el autor, por eso digo, que tenés un estilo...
Many thanks again for the nice comment, Gustavo - and I must also say that I don't really realize what might be my "personal style". I only shoot what I see and that's all. It can get pretty hard to recognize the "own style" and this is the only reason why I ask you, you know.
With the flower you are right, Visar! With the piano you are... hmmmm.. pontentially right! ;-) Yes, a piano would fit there like a fist on my eye but unfortunatly it's only the usual bar, the flat surface thing where they serve the drinks on.
I also think that it definitely needed much more visible details in the dark regions. The problem would then be how to keep the nice architectural details (that we see out of the window) with not as much overexposure. I guess that I could perhaps dodge afterwards, but I am too... unwilling to do that - or even immature.
But the general atmosphere was much like what we see here - it was indeed a rather low ligght situation, a typical bar with much "dark areas" in it - you know the corners for people that only want to be for themselves for some minutes. So, I think that the question goes into the very fundamental question about balance between the general look as conveyed by the image, and the details that of course have to be there in order to be able to "see" anything at all. I guess my balnace was way towards that general atmosphere here, wasn't it? Oh well, next time, next bar, next shot! ;-)
ok, Nick, I do trust you when you talk about that mood of this place and all that is taking place there. But i think a few more details on the dark areas are needed.I can't really identify what these objects are. i vaguely see a flower on the left side, and a piano (?) on the right- and to me they both impose that atmosphere. and then, when i look at the ceiling and the other parts of this fency space i really smell the relaxing mood.
0 
