Shooting style and editing style are completely different things.
The problem with developing a certain style of processing is that most people tend to use it all the time regardless of subject matter... and as a result, it only works sometimes. It's like a stopped clock - right twice a day, but more often than not, wrong. Good editing should compliment the image, and so is often different from image to image. Certain things can define a style though. Use of colour for instance, or the way you crop images (either in camera or afterwards), composition, or even the subjects you shoot... they all add up to a person's style. It's never a result of one thing alone.
PARTS of the editing process can become a constant for you, and help give an image a certain look to them. I have certain things I tend to do a great deal, such as alter the tonal range by layer blending with B&W versions, but again, it's not something I could save as a preset and just repeat, as the filtration of B&W changes depending in the colours in the scene.... and I can recognise that it gives much of my work a certain look to it... but it's subtle mostly.
Ask yourself this though. Think of the photographers that have the most recognisable "styles". Is it actually processing, or is it something else? Sometimes it's processing... Ansel Adams for example: It's what he did to the images after shooting them more than the images themselves that defined his work, but it was also his immense technical craft with a camera and his strict adherence to formal composition. Above all though... great lighting being captured.
However, that's not the case for most. Martin Parr = Ring Flash, daylight sync, saturated R-type prints and irreverently throwing the camera club 101 composition rule book out of the window.. so most of what makes Parr, Parr is actually camera work. His best known work (what most people imagine when they hear the name Martin Parr) was pre-digital, so limited options for colour images 30 years ago. Above all else though.... it's WHAT he shot that defined Parr.. not how he shot it... HOW he shot it was just the icing on the cake.. a nice finishing touch, it was a combination of interesting use of lighting, and strong and engaging subject matter... and a splash of controversy that made him.
Dorothea Lange: Not much processing going on here... pretty straight black and white film photography. Nicely printed when you see a print for real... clearly some dodging and burning going on... but essentially straight photography.. she probably didn't print her own work any way. If you look at her contact sheets though, it is clear that it IS editing that makes her work great, but not editing as you're discussing it, but editing in the literal sense.. as in choosing what image to go with and which ones to junk.... in other words, a keen eye for what makes a photograph engaging.
Joel Peter Witkin: It's pretty much what he shot (he's still alive but I've seen nothing new from him for 20 years or so) that made him what he is. Again, there IS a style of lighting and printing that puts the final stamp on his work.. but lighting is not a post process.
Nick Knight. Lighting.. the end
Tim Walker: Lighting and themes/Narratives
Giocomo Brunelli: Camera work and lighting
The aesthetics of an image can play a role, but even with those such as Parr and Adams who rely on a strong aesthetic, still really become great because of what they shoot and how they shoot it rather than processing.
I think the over-riding factor is subject matter, lighting and camera work. They should ALWAYS come before processing. Without those as the foundation, processing is a thin and unconvincing veneer that most can see through.
My advice is, stop worrying over post processing techniques. That's not what makes great photography anyway. Spend some time revisiting your images with an eye to NOT processing them at all. Look for more interesting things within the photograph itself. Interesting subject matter... things that will engage the viewer. Great expressions on people, great lighting, nicely times moments, topical subject matter etc.
The biggest mistake I see in people's work is randomly walking around with a camera just "capturing" stuff with far less attention to detail than they give the "captures" when sat at the computer. Are you a photographer, or digital artist?
The best thing to do is decide what you want to shoot before you even leave the house. Decide on a project. Decide what you want your images to say.
Take street photography as an example. It's easy to think, "I'll just go out and shoot people in the street" and yes, you may get the odd gem here and there.. that will always happen, but the attrition rate when editing will be HUGE as you're relying on serendipity. How about deciding on what you want to capture first? What IS it about peopel that makes you want to shoot them (Ha!.... pun intended)... is it the way they behave, look... what is it? There's some really interesting traits people have... maybe take a leaf out of Parr's book ( I don;'t mean shoot with ring flash etc.). Look critically at us as a nation... our little idiosyncrasies. Why do we naturally form a queue even when there's no barrier there? In some countries... no barrier = bear pit, survival of the fittest... but we're so terribly... British about it. THAT'S interesting.... go out with a mind to capture that instead of just capturing "people".
The stronger the content, the less you'll feel inclined to paper over the cracks with processing, and processing will become the icing that just lends it a nice subtle touch to put your mark on it.
After all... you're discussing air show shots here.. Realistically.. how much processing can you do before they start to look ridiculous any way? If you feel the editing's inconsistency was what made them look ridiculous, then don't "edit" them. Just decide how much levels, curves etc, you want to make them look punchy and vibrant for example, and leave it at that.
Thanks
