Which is more interesting:
that what happens in front of
the camera, or behind it?

(‘Turkeys’ for ‘GEO’ magazine;
with assistant Astrid Bärndal)
> > INTERVIEW (continued)

Do you have a distinctive photographic style?
     I used to always deny that, but there
are some who don’t agree with me on that
matter. I don’t know if you could call that a
trade mark, but above all I try to do exciting
photos, images that stand out from the rest,
intelligent pictures.
     I also dropped doing all this gaudy,
colorful lighting you see so often in science
photography. For instance, in the first edit
of my story on the German Museum there
were dozens of pictures which were lighted
in all colours of the rainbow but had little
to do with the museum’s special character.
The selection you now can see here on my
website is a lot more authentic.


What do people find typical in your pictures?
     A certain clarity in composition and
colour. If that is my personal style I never
developed it intentionally, it rather evolved
as a natural thing. I suppose it is a heritage
from my former career as a graphic designer…

What bothers you about having your own
distinctive style?

     I don’t have anything against it per se.
Sometimes I am amazed how you are able
to recognize the work of certain outstanding
photographers, and I wonder why is that?
     But I myself prefer to remain open-minded
enough to be able to create every picture the
way I think right at that moment.


I’m afraid that a distinctive personal style
could become so rigid as to limit my
photographic freedom and become a burden.
With a too distinctive signature there is
great danger you’ll be coming out of fashion
after a couple of years. Timelessness might
be your better bet.
     Especially in journalistic photography
it is essential that the photographer’s
personal style does not obscure the focus
of attention.
     Which is more interesting: that what
happens in front of the camera, or behind it?
                                           (That’s all folks)