Every photographer has his own style, right? This is almost always true. “Almost always”, because there have been photographers (and there are and there will be) who have faced different styles in their career.

Speaking of photographic styles I refer to two great categories: non commercial and commercial photography.

The first one includes the amateur and the artistic photographer. The first expresses a very personal point of view that does not have a well-defined audience (and that perhaps will never have any) while the second seeks an audience, because the artist — normally at least — wants to have an audience.

In both cases the public has nil or reduced dimensions. Very rarely it is numerous: a few isolated photographers in fact have great success. For example Helmut Newton or Steve McCurry, to name a few. I believe that in their cases their photos are more famous than their names themselves. But this is another story.

The second area — that is commercial photography — belongs to professional photographers and the media or brands that buy their works. In this environment, photographs are more important than the photographers because those who want to buy a photo have a specific purpose: to promote a product, to visually comment certain facts (this is the case of photojournalism, even if this type of photography is only laterally commercial — it is in the sense that it is paid, but the spirit and purpose for which it is made is different and not entirely commercial but rather informative).

An usual error of judgement is to believe that the two types of photographer — commercial or not — can not coexist in the same person. I believe instead that a complete photographer can cover both roles.

If photography is meant as a form of communication, a photographer can speak both languages. The fact of taking “commercial” photos does not detract from his work but only indicates that he is capable of using different languages.

Photography is a language and — like any form of communication — is based on who says something and who listens to that thing. If the message is too complicated it can not reach the public. If the message is addressed to the wrong public, it is bound to mean nothing to anyone.

Do you like Apple products images? I find them beautiful and I would call them an artistic product for quality, choice of framing, love for detail. Yet it is still commercial photography, expressly made to visually describe a product with the aim of encouraging consumers to buy it. This kind of picture puts a bit in crisis the definition that I gave a while ago: is it art photography? Is it commercial photography? In this case the two definitions are confused because the quality of those photos is so high that they can be mistake for art pictures and yet their purpose is much more venial.

As in many other aspects of life it is not easy to simplify and categorize, isn’t it?

As photographers we can decide to be both: commercial and not. Among other things, the simplicity with which today we can take quality pictures with economic and light tools, pushes us to be photographers anytime: in the studio or on the street. When inspiration or work inspires us to be in this or that way, we can choose to be one type of photographer or another.