Do you Take pictures -or- Make pictures

[hdr]

... When I was younger, my whole life was experienced through a viewfinder. Not any more though, sometimes the viewfinder is a way to filter out life, not experience it. I think as I age, the experience has more value than the imagery. That doesn't mean the imagery isn't important, just that the experience is MORE important.

That seems to me more like enlightenment...

Like the Oriental Buddhist spiritual saying, "All is nothing"...

 

[Glen Barrington]

... When I was younger, my whole life was experienced through a viewfinder. Not any more though, sometimes the viewfinder is a way to filter out life, not experience it. I think as I age, the experience has more value than the imagery. That doesn't mean the imagery isn't important, just that the experience is MORE important.

That seems to me more like enlightenment...

Like the Oriental Buddhist spiritual saying, "All is nothing"...

 

[Dennis]

I think that there is an important difference here. Taking a photo, IMO, is a passive act. You point the camera at the subject and press the shutter button. Making a photo is an active process. You choose an aperture for the DOF that you want. You choose a shutter speed to stop or show movement. Maybe you use a polarizer or ND filter to remove a reflection or darken the sky. You move a little to the side you avoid a distracting background. These are examples of things we do to make a picture.

So there's a semantic difference in how we each interpret "take" versus "make" but you also point out that there are degrees of intent. At the extreme, you have someone who visualizes a print in his mind, then puts together everything in the scene; the background, the subjects, the lighting, to produce the previsualized result. Then you have people who have varying levels of intent involving some degree of control over the scene itself (modifying or augmenting the lighting, "interfering" with the subject matter, waiting for the right conditions) on up to the person who wants to record what's in front of him, but controls perspective, framing, camera settings and so on (ignoring what someone might intend to do in post processing and at what point they figure out that intent !) And then finally, you have people who relegate the job of taking the picture to the camera - the snapshooters, the every day people who use a camera like an appliance.

So is everyone who photographs with intent a picture maker ? Or only the people who control what's in front of the camera ?

Regardless of the definition, at least most of us know what we each do in practice.

• Dennis
  --
  Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[Lucy]

It's become more apparent to me that there are two different approaches by photographers to their photography.

One group Takes a picture, whether it be a landscape, a bride and groom, a sport activity, their kids, birds, street scene, etc.

The other group starts with a vision somewhere in their head and builds that image in their studio or out on location whether it be a dream, or a fantasy or an editorial comment or a fashion spread, product or commercial shoot, etc.

I am mostly a picture taker. But I admire the picture makers. So what are you?

EDIT - I'm sure someone will post the comment "Does it matter?" The answer is no. But it interesting as to how one approaches that little rectangle that is their photography.

 

[Ron Poelman]

and now I know why so many artists starve !

 

[hdr]

... When I was younger, my whole life was experienced through a viewfinder. Not any more though, sometimes the viewfinder is a way to filter out life, not experience it. I think as I age, the experience has more value than the imagery. That doesn't mean the imagery isn't important, just that the experience is MORE important.

That seems to me more like enlightenment...

Like the Oriental Buddhist spiritual saying, "All is nothing"...

Well, most of the time, I don't FEEL particularly enlightened and I doubt that it shows. At least to my wife.

Well, enlightenment after all is itself a lonely state known to no other, except the enlightened...

 

[Osvaldo Cristo]

I choose the focal length as well POV - it means I never bought the idea of "feet zoom". It is not possible any focal length replace completely a different one except with cropping or stitching.

I use mainly AF and manual exposition as usually I want to control the aperture and speed, as well the camera sensor´s sensibility (aka ISO). I assume the responsibilities for any trade off. Depending from my needs I can work with the great AUTO ISO from my D300S combined with M exposure. Sometimes, I will use S or A mode. Sometimes MF also. Everything is deliberate - I can tell you the reason behind my setup and POV.

Perhaps I am too "Engineer" but it works for me.

Regards,

 

[sshoihet]

I make them, but I'll break it down even further... there's a "pre" visualization phase where i visualize my scene before I shoot it, often there's a "post" visualiztion phase where I don't completely decide what the final image is going to look like until i'm working on it in post; this can be quite a significant part of the process for more creative images.

 

[mgd43]

I think that there is an important difference here. Taking a photo, IMO, is a passive act. You point the camera at the subject and press the shutter button. Making a photo is an active process. You choose an aperture for the DOF that you want. You choose a shutter speed to stop or show movement. Maybe you use a polarizer or ND filter to remove a reflection or darken the sky. You move a little to the side you avoid a distracting background. These are examples of things we do to make a picture.

So there's a semantic difference in how we each interpret "take" versus "make" but you also point out that there are degrees of intent. At the extreme, you have someone who visualizes a print in his mind, then puts together everything in the scene; the background, the subjects, the lighting, to produce the previsualized result. Then you have people who have varying levels of intent involving some degree of control over the scene itself (modifying or augmenting the lighting, "interfering" with the subject matter, waiting for the right conditions) on up to the person who wants to record what's in front of him, but controls perspective, framing, camera settings and so on (ignoring what someone might intend to do in post processing and at what point they figure out that intent !) And then finally, you have people who relegate the job of taking the picture to the camera - the snapshooters, the every day people who use a camera like an appliance.

So is everyone who photographs with intent a picture maker ? Or only the people who control what's in front of the camera ?

Regardless of the definition, at least most of us know what we each do in practice.

• Dennis
  --
  Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

I think that if you photograph with intent you generally have to take some control in order to translate your intent into a photograph that shows that intent. For example if you want to show the flow of water over a waterfall you might use a slow shutter speed rather than a fast one that would freeze the movement of the water. We make all kinds of decisions when we make a photograph. It's not the intent that makes a photograph it's the decisions you make and the control that you take that makes a photograph.

 

[nzmacro]

It's become more apparent to me that there are two different approaches by photographers to their photography.

One group Takes a picture, whether it be a landscape, a bride and groom, a sport activity, their kids, birds, street scene, etc.

The other group starts with a vision somewhere in their head and builds that image in their studio or out on location whether it be a dream, or a fantasy or an editorial comment or a fashion spread, product or commercial shoot, etc.

I am mostly a picture taker. But I admire the picture makers. So what are you?

EDIT - I'm sure someone will post the comment "Does it matter?" The answer is no. But it interesting as to how one approaches that little rectangle that is their photography.

--
http://chkphotography.zenfolio.com/

Tricky question and there are lots of if's and buts to it.

Firstly I take a shot, then make an image .......

http://birdsinaction.com/index.php/Reality-meets-fantasy

So maybe I work backwards and I don't want to say it, but does it really matter

If you take that ...group you mention, what you need to realise with spots and BIF's for example, we only have a split second and the only thing you get a chance to make, is to make the shutter go click. There is no time to build an image at all. That can come after the shot though for sure.

All the best.

Danny.

--
http://www.birdsinaction.com
Just Kingfisher ..... http://www.flickr.com/photos/96361462@N06/

 

[juvx]

Id say if you want something great you need both.

Be prepared to make pictures but take pictures of a moment.

Timing has been a factor in many of the best pictures iv ever seen.

So that's taking pictures but the photographer was there in the moment prepared with the objective to getting a good shot, that's making pictures...

 

[jrtrent]

I just want reminders of people, places, and events--what one of my favorite authors, Brian Bower, referred to as memory jerkers. I set up my camera's image parameter settings to render contrast and color as realistically as it can, then shoot using a normal focal length at eye level. This seems to give me pictures that best reflect what I saw at the time I was there, and that's all I'm trying to achieve.

 

[hotdog321]

I shoot pictures--unless I'm covering a president or pope! Then I document or have a photo assignment.

 

[GeraldW]

First off, I believe there is a philosophic difference between "taking pictures", and "doing photography". In doing photography, it implies having your head in the game.

Second, two of my idols worked very differently. Henri Cartier-Bresson took pictures- very much a man of the moment. Although I'd argue he was really "doing photography" in a serious and thoughtful way; even though he did not process his own film or prints. Ansel Adams "made pictures" and nothing was done on the spur of the moment. A man totally commited to "doing photography" from the selection of equipment, planning the shot, and days in the darkroom.

Me? I try to "do photography" as much as I can. Digital, with its convenience of processing, made me have a renaissance in my approach to photography and converted me from a picture taker to "doing photography" again. Something I had lost over the course of many years So I guess I "make" pictures in your terminology.

I'd also suggest that "making pictures" need not rely on post processing; but can also occur via choice of settings, at the time of taking the picture. Digital allows you to review the shot, make changes, and reshoot, until you get the effect you want. But that's also my "doing photography".