Is it Best to be a Specialist or a Generalist?

So you own a dSLR, you photograph incessantly on your spare time, you share your work and you’ve gained a confidence in presenting yourself as a photographer yet why do we somehow freeze when we’re ask what type of photographer we are?

It’s a question I struggle to have a straightforward answer to because I don’t typically categorize myself as a specific type in view that I photograph all type of things yet I do know I have no interest in shooting weddings.

As it pertains to photography, Brian Auer posed the question of whether it’s best to be a specialist or a generalist and he defines them both for you to examine which one are you.

Specialists - they have a very recognizable body of work based on subject matter or photographic style. This can be good if you want to have your name associated with that subject or style. But it could be bad if you don’t want to feel limited to that one thing.

Generalists - they are often less recognizable because they cover so many different subjects and their style can be varied to suit the need of the subject. This can be good if you like doing something different all the time. But it could be bad if you find that you’re never well known for any one thing in particular.

Based on those definitions I would say I’m a Generalist working towards being a Specialist.