This post is a continuation of Chiaroscuro Portraiture: Why I’m Letting the Dark Do More of the Work — because once you commit to a visual language, the next question is simple:
What do you feed your eye so your work has a chance of becoming consistent?
I’ve come to believe personal style doesn’t start in Lightroom.
It starts in attention.
Before a photographer develops a “look,” they develop a way of seeing. A habit of noticing. A preference that becomes instinct. And that instinct gets trained by input — by what you study, what you return to, what you let influence you when you’re not even thinking about influence.
Output is downstream from input.
So instead of letting my eye be shaped by whatever scrolls past me, I’m doing something more deliberate: I’m choosing three photographers as my current “teachers” — not to imitate, but to align my taste with my intent.
For now, my triangle is: George Hurrell. Yousuf Karsh. Fan Ho.
Three different arenas. One shared obsession: light and shadow used with conviction.
Style isn’t something you find. It’s something you rehearse.
In my Day 15 post, I wrote about the moment the portrait stopped feeling like an experiment and started feeling like a commitment. That matters because a commitment changes the way you practice.
When you’re “trying things,” you accept variety.
When you’re building a style, you accept repetition.
That idea keeps showing up in my work lately — Style is the residue of repetition — and it’s also why I’m narrowing my influences on purpose. Not forever. But for now.
Constraints are how style forms.
Why these three?
Because they cover the three layers I’m trying to merge into my own work:
- Hurrell teaches me lighting as theatre.
- Karsh teaches me lighting as character revelation.
- Fan Ho teaches me light and shadow as composition — in the real world, at street speed.
Same language. Different dialects.
George Hurrell: lighting that commits
Hurrell is a reminder that dramatic lighting isn’t an aesthetic choice — it’s a decision to prioritize shape over detail, mood over coverage, and intention over safety.
What I’m studying from Hurrell isn’t “old Hollywood” as nostalgia.
It’s discipline:
- One dominant light that does the talking
- Shadow that isn’t apologized for
- Highlights that feel placed, not accidental
- Background falloff that makes the frame feel designed
Hurrell is the studio version of what I’m trying to do in my photography: use contrast to say something.
Yousuf Karsh: the face carved into truth
Karsh is the portrait north star I didn’t realize I’d been orbiting for years.
That Hemingway portrait is everything I want portraiture to be: not pretty, not flattering, not “content.” It’s presence. It’s a human being rendered with weight.
What I’m studying from Karsh:
- The eye as the anchor point
- Texture as story (not something to smooth away)
- Shadow used to create pressure
- A kind of respectful intensity — the subject is seen, not styled
Karsh also reinforces something I keep circling back to: photography isn’t about taking. It’s about making.
That thread matters to me enough that I wrote it down as a foundation: Making, Not Taking.
Fan Ho: street chiaroscuro, pure and ruthless
Fan Ho is the bridge.
He takes the studio idea — one dominant source, clean shadow shapes, decisive contrast — and proves it can live in the street without looking “lit.”
Because the street is lit.
Sunlight becomes a key light. Buildings become flags. Alleys become negative fill. A wall becomes a backdrop. A figure becomes punctuation.
What I’m studying from Fan Ho:
- Shadow as the main subject, not the background
- Negative space as composition, not emptiness
- Geometry first, person second — but the person makes it human
- Waiting until the frame becomes inevitable
This connects cleanly to why I’ve always loved Cartier-Bresson — and why I’ve spent time trying to clarify what the decisive moment actually is (and isn’t):
- Henri Cartier-Bresson and the decisive moment: when head, eye, and heart align
- HCB wasn’t a sniper: why the decisive moment is often misunderstood
Fan Ho feels like the same mindset — but with the volume turned up on light and shadow.
One style, two worlds: portraits and streets
This is the evolution from my Day 15 post: At first, chiaroscuro felt like a portrait lighting decision.
Now I’m seeing it as a worldview.
A way of editing reality in-camera. A way of choosing what matters by choosing what to reveal.
That connects to how I shoot the city — especially inside my ongoing constraint of the 28mm field of view:
- Finding style in the street: the 28mm field of view and the discipline of presence
- Faces of Toronto: an intimate street portrait project with a 28mm lens
Chiaroscuro isn’t separate from that. It’s a sharpening of it.
The practical part: how I’m training my eye
Here’s the simple system I’m going to run:
1) Hurrell study walks (light placement)
I’m not looking for people first. I’m looking for light that behaves like a studio.
Bright patch. Deep shadow. Clean edge. Background falloff.
Then I wait for the subject.
2) Karsh sessions (character + hold)
Whether it’s self-portraits or real subjects, the goal is the same: One light. One face. One truth.
This connects to the work I’ve already been doing in the home studio as a learning lab aka my home studio : From self-portraits to real portraits
3) Fan Ho hunts (shadow geometry)
I’m going to actively hunt for:
- big shadow shapes
- single figures
- negative space that feels intentional
- moments where a person becomes a note inside a composition
Not “a good street moment.”
A chiaroscuro moment.
Closing: I’m curating my influences like a diet
This is me putting guardrails around my development.
Not because I want to shrink my taste.
But because I want my work to stop being an accident.
Hurrell. Karsh. Fan Ho.
Three teachers. One direction.
And if I keep feeding my eye this kind of work — and pairing it with reps and a system — my output has a chance of becoming what I’ve wanted all along:
- Not a look.
- A signature.