Why I HATE the term "capture" for taking a photo...

Started Apr 21, 2013 | Discussions thread
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,839
Like?
Yet another artsy fartsy PC term?
In reply to Paul Farace, Apr 21, 2013

Paul Farace wrote:

I see an increasing number of "hipster" photo folks talking about what a neat CAPTURE an image is... as if you set a trap and a mouse tripped a wire and ended up in a cage. That is a total slam against a photographer... even the most casual picture taken has some level of input from the photographer... even if it's the choice of lens (wide vs. the perspective-compacting effect of a telephoto) or lighting choice (stobe vs. none), or camera position ...  Even if you try to be neutral in your effect of recording something, you can not help but effect the final outcome in some way. I would consider someone referring to my images as "captures" as in effect saying, you totally lucked out and accidentally caught those images...

Or capture might apply if you set up remote operated and self-triggered camera in the woods to record a hungry herd of deer, or a wild shot of a raccoon.

Maybe I am not looking at it the right way...   input?

-- hide signature --

Holding a camera, any camera, reduces my blood pressure, calms my nerves, and gives me a sense of opportunity!

I think the definition of capture fits the action, BUT. To me it is an artsy fartsy term. Making it sound they actually did more than they actually did. They pointed the camera and pulled the trigger. The took the shot.

So it is almost not pc I shot the picture. I shot the animal, I captured the image, I captured the animal. Then released it back into nature. LOL

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow