Posted by Anil Rao on February 8, 2007 at 11:07 PM
We have all heard it said before, that photographs are made not taken. The same should apply to landscape photography too, right? I mean with respect to realizing our "vision" (or whatever that something is, which quite frankly I don't understand but I hear it mentioned all the time).
I know all about camera technique and decisions related to composition so I hope we can avoid talking about that. But is there something else that you guys do when "making" your photographs? Somehow, when I see some really good work - e.g. the portfolios of Eric Fredine and Tony Kuyper - I get the feeling that those photographs were made.
Any thoughts you'd like to share on the above.
Posted by Kent Staubus on February 8, 2007 at 11:52 PM
I take photos virtually every day as I drive around. All of them have some planning to them, be it a minute or even planned half a year in advance. Most of the time I find I make competent but unexciting photos. Every now and then though, everything seems to come together: the light, the subject, the right photo gear, etc. There's one other, very elusive thing though. I guess you could call it a feeling of excitement or inspiration. Being caught up in the moment. I've heard some call it being "in the zone." When that happens, it seems like I can do no wrong. Tonight I've been reviewing some the shots I've made over the past couple of weeks. Of the half a dozen that seem really good, Most of those were made in quick succession one evening when the light and everything else just seemed to be working for me. So, in a fifteen minute burst spread between two locations about 8 miles apart, I made three fourths of my best shots for the past two weeks. It doesn't discourage me that I seem to go for days and days without making any memorable shots--I live for that handfull. As long as they come every now & then, I'm happy. Yes, there is effort, planning, and skill involved. More than that though, they just seem to "flow."
I get the feeling that those photographs were made.>>
I can not agree more. Good work is always 'made'. This may or may not include 'pre-visualization'. And by that I do not mean how the final print will come out but the preparation you go through before going to and when at the location. Hope it makes sense.
Posted by Roger Rouch on February 9, 2007 at 2:27 PM
If I was to weigh in on a basic, "good photographs are made not taken", my corelary would be that "good photographs are made, but look like they were taken".
Posted by Kent Mearig on February 9, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Because I so often decide my favorite photograph from a particular outing is a different one from what I expected while on location, I think my mode of operation is an attempt to work as thought free as possible. What I mean is that when I compose a photo I follow the rules without consciously thinking about the rules, and I break the rules almost as often without thinking about that either. Does that mean I'm not making photo's just taking them? I don't think so. The more natural I can think while photographing a subject, the better my chances are of "making" my pictures an extension of myself.
Making a photo might also have more to do with what goes on after you get back home than it does with the work in the field as long as you had some inspired efforts on location. Some of the photographers that we look up to here could probably make a masterpiece out of one of the mediocre images we post. Of course certain ones will also tell you that they really don't do a lot in PP and it's all about being in the right place at the right time with the right skills.
I wanted to share one more thought without getting too religious for anyone who might be put off by that. A great photograph is made, not taken, but the photographer is not the only one making the photograph. God (you can call it Mother Nature if you want to) is making the landscape beautiful all around us, and realizing that has gone a long way toward adding success to my attempts to create meaningful photos.
Anil, I went to see your work at your website and you definitely make some beautiful photos.
The "vision" you speak of defies description or definition but I compiled a list of areas that make a photograph according to me. Light, color, texture, form, shapes, flow, depth, harmony, lines and emotion. The last one referring to how the photographer feels about the subject; that he is truly fascinated by what he sees and not just recording something.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Posted by Gary Crabbe on February 10, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Anil:
Something I always tell my workshop students; Before a photo can be "Made", it has to be "Found". As I explain it, knowing how to find photos is probably the biggest key to taking your photography to the next level, and is even more important IMHO than knowing all the technical science and mechanics of taking a photo. To me, I consider the "Made" part these days (w/ digital) to be more about the post capture processing. It's the combination of skills, understanding, and talent in finding, taking, and processing images the "Makes" or "Breaks" and photo.
Cheers, (One cent rebates offered on my 2 cent opinion)
Posted by David Senesac on February 10, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Gary, your comment is absolutely right on >>> "Before a photo can be "Made", it has to be "Found".
Learn to trust and nurture an inner sense of what is visually aesthetic and beautiful instead of just relying on public knowledge of what and where beauty lies or the advice and direction of others. ...David
Posted by John W. Wall on February 12, 2007 at 1:02 PM
I think technique, equipment and compositional skills are key to the difference between making and taking. Anybody can see an emotionally moving scene, and the guy pointing his cell phone at it can "take" a picture of it. A photographer gestalts the scene based on his experience and vision, makes decisions about timing and positioning, makes the technical and compositional calls, then "makes" a picture, but not before remembering to remove his lens cap.
Hi Anil: I get the sense that your question is fairly loaded
Posted by Richard Wong on February 12, 2007 at 3:27 PM
My feeling is that I'd rather shoot than think about philosophy. Now if only the rainy weather will clear up.
Posted by Anil Rao on February 12, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Michael: Not sure what you mean by "fairly loaded." Its just that the other day, I was having a conversation with a friend and the topic of making vs taking a photograph came up. This friend asked me if I thought my photographs were made or taken and why? Quite frankly I didn't have an answer for her, so I thought I'd post here and see what others had to say on this subject.
Gary alluded to "found" photographs. Found photographs might include (but are not limited to) the more 'obvious' (read: literal) photographs of any location. These are the types of photographs ("scenics") that might be obivous to most people, not just photographers. Think: Glacier Point at Yosemite; south rim of Grand Canyon; etc. IMO, "made" photographs tend to be those that necessitate the eyes and imagination (or "vision") of the photograph's maker; potential images that many others might walk right by yet that beckon the 'maker' to further study.
What do you think about your work, Anil? Do you "take pictures" or do you "make photographs"?
Posted by Anil Rao on February 12, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Michael.
What do you think about your work, Anil? Do you "take pictures" or do you "make photographs"?
I don't know but the more I think about it I guess I am closer to the former.
Same reason it's important for a cook to say they made a meal rather than picked it up on the way home.
Guy
Posted by Anil Rao on February 12, 2007 at 7:44 PM
OK, I get the message. I was trying to understand what is the difference between taking a picture and making a photograph but I guess I will have to ask elsewhere. It appears that everyone here "makes" photographs (which I suppose is a good thing).
I think that we actually 'capture' a nascent image on film/digital media. We then interpret that image in the darkroom or PhotoShop, and then 'make' the photographic print.
Anil: when it boils right down to it, the difference between "taking a picture" and "making a photograph" is the difference between toe-may-toe or toe-mah-toe. To some people, how it's said is irrelevant. To others, the language we use to describe our form of art is important.
Here's a photograph I can use as an example. In this case, my choice of where to stand, which lens to use, visualizing the crop on scene, when to release the shutter (the fog was swirly and quick-changing) and choice of film have all, dare I say, contributed to the making of this photograph.
Posted by Lon Overacker on February 13, 2007 at 1:59 AM
Although I wanted to expand on Gary's earlier response about "first, a photograph must be found," I think there is an important distinction to make between "make" and "take" as it relates to our (photographer) perspective.
Let's think about this for a second... who's asking the question, and who's responding?
Photographers.
I had a nice learning experience a few years back when I did my first and only arts and crafts festival. It was a major milestone for me... all the prep work, the expense and then finally two days of sitting in the hot sun worrying my prints would melt. But to the point, it was so revealing to hear all the comments from passer's-by: "I've got a shot like that," "Honey, you took one just like that in Yosemite," "I should just blow up that print I took on vacation instead of paying that kind of money," or "I've got shots like that."
What I'm getting at is that photographers (100% of the folks reading this) think we "make" photographs. In my opinion, most non-photographers, or the public in general, think photographers "take" pictures.
I think Guy's point about a cook making a meal is quite appropriate. Does a pianist make music, or just play? Does Tiger Woods create golf shots, or does he just hit a little white ball in the hole? It's all about point of view. We (generalizing photographers) are sensitive and sometimes defensive when we need to explain to a non-photographer the difference between making (creating) or simply taking (pnt-n-shooting) a picture.
We can all agree to disagree the difference between "making" and "taking" a photograph, but the moment we look at it from a certain perspective, I think as photographers, we're on the same page; we like to think we create. I certainly do. But I also recognize that I "snap" plenty of family vacation shots, birthday parties, etc. I'd like to think that I can distinguish between the times I think I'm creating images versus the time I'm just taking.
Thanks for the topic Anil.
Lon
Posted by Wayne Rhodus on February 13, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Great topic Anil! I have really enjoyed everyone's perspectives and comments.
From my perspective there is no "make" or "take", no either / or, I do both at the same time.
To be sure, Mother Earth provides the inspiration that motivates each of us to pursue our creative license. As "nature photographers" the distinction of "make or take" lies in our appreciation of nature, i.e. we are compelled to "make" photos of things that move us. We seek them out, sometimes at great expense and effort and once there capture that moment with all the skills we can muster so that we can "take" it with us, whether for our own personal use or to share our experience with others.
In other words, true nature photographers "make" photos because we have to .... snapshooters "take" photos because they are there.
Just my humble thoughts. Thanks!
Posted by David Senesac on February 13, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Anil >>> "Why is it important to say that we "make" photographs?"
That certainly is a common phrase along with "take" and "shoot". I personally don't use it but with my view camera rather talk in terms of exposing sheets of film while with my Coolpix use take or shoot. Maybe that is because make has always sounded too much like designing. After I have an image scanned or downloaded onto my computer, I still don't use that term since my personal style is about reproducing a scene or subject as best I may and not creating, designing, or making images. Thus talk in terms of processing an image file. ...David
Anil,
I don't know, perhaps I have a different view on this. I can see everyone's point about making photographs. But, the general consensus I read is that taking photographs is viewed as something of a lesser value, at least in a artistic sense. I disagree. I think the intent might be different but the skill level involved is not any less. Tim
Posted by Ian Beatty on February 14, 2007 at 8:57 AM
I think there are a few key things that help differentiate the pros or semi pros from the happy snappers.
1) Some element of previsualization
2) The technical skill to translate your visualization onto film/digital
3) Deciding what to keep and how to display it
So, to me, to make a photo is a process that starts well before you press the shutter, and doesn't end until well after.
Posted by Kent Mearig on February 14, 2007 at 1:38 PM
I don't know how important it really is to say that we "make" photos instead of saying the we "take" photos, but I imagine that a large percentage of the motivation comes from the connotation of different words used in association with photography. Taking something has a negative connotation that in some ways puts it in the same category as stealing. I would much prefer to say that I was given a photograph, instead of take or make, but that is relatively awkward terminology. Since I've never heard it used, most people would probably be confused or annoyed if I went around saying that I was given some very wonderful photos while out in the field today. They would be asking, "Who gave them to you?"
Another word I actually try pretty hard to avoid is "shoot/shot". In the typical context for the word, what is the outcome of a "nice shot"? Yeah, something dies when you get off a nice shot, and isn't that fundamentally opposite to the intentions of most photographers. Similarly, I'm not a big fan of the word "capture", and instead I'd like to use "preserve" or something like it. The terminology of photography is packed full of words that I perceive as having negative connotations, so of course photographers are going to want to pick new words to describe what they do.
I'm with you, Kent. As I said earlier in the thread, I believe that the language we use IS important.
Re: shoot/shot: I wonder, would a painter ever describe their technique as "slapping on the oils" or a finished piece as having "banged one out"? In my opinion, the slang we use to describe our photography is similarly debasing.
"So, to me, to make a photo is a process that starts well before you press the shutter, and doesn't end until well after."
To me this hits the nail on the head. I think the "making" of a photograph involves a lot more of intellectual participation before and after the shutter has been pressed.
The making of a photograph is the conscious creation of a photograph. It starts with an idea, it continues with searching for this idea in the outdoors - and here the making again is very literal. The photographer assembles elements he finds in the outdoors. May it be subject matter, light, angle of view etc.
He does not simply "take" what appears in his view-finder - like the snapshooter would do. The photographer "takes" elements found in nature and arranges them in is view-finder until he's got something that is a composition - the "taking" turns into "making". It involves a lot of scouting, waiting for light etc. It is not unlike from what a painter does: The painter as well arranges elements until he has a composition. The photographer does the same, but it might be even harder because he just cannot alter nature by his own hands. He must seek for that perfect alignment of elements - and he only finds it if he had already looked for it.
Of course, a snapshooter might come up with the same composition. But then it is only a coincidence and there is a big difference in the ways how the composition was achieved.
So, for me there is a big difference in taking and making a photograph, I think the term "making" a photograph emerged for a reason.
It's not just two different terms. It is an entirely different approach.
Regards, Dietrich
Discussion
29 repliesI know all about camera technique and decisions related to composition so I hope we can avoid talking about that. But is there something else that you guys do when "making" your photographs? Somehow, when I see some really good work - e.g. the portfolios of Eric Fredine and Tony Kuyper - I get the feeling that those photographs were made.
Any thoughts you'd like to share on the above.
Kent in SD
I can not agree more. Good work is always 'made'. This may or may not include 'pre-visualization'. And by that I do not mean how the final print will come out but the preparation you go through before going to and when at the location. Hope it makes sense.
Making a photo might also have more to do with what goes on after you get back home than it does with the work in the field as long as you had some inspired efforts on location. Some of the photographers that we look up to here could probably make a masterpiece out of one of the mediocre images we post. Of course certain ones will also tell you that they really don't do a lot in PP and it's all about being in the right place at the right time with the right skills.
I wanted to share one more thought without getting too religious for anyone who might be put off by that. A great photograph is made, not taken, but the photographer is not the only one making the photograph. God (you can call it Mother Nature if you want to) is making the landscape beautiful all around us, and realizing that has gone a long way toward adding success to my attempts to create meaningful photos.
The "vision" you speak of defies description or definition but I compiled a list of areas that make a photograph according to me. Light, color, texture, form, shapes, flow, depth, harmony, lines and emotion. The last one referring to how the photographer feels about the subject; that he is truly fascinated by what he sees and not just recording something.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Something I always tell my workshop students; Before a photo can be "Made", it has to be "Found". As I explain it, knowing how to find photos is probably the biggest key to taking your photography to the next level, and is even more important IMHO than knowing all the technical science and mechanics of taking a photo. To me, I consider the "Made" part these days (w/ digital) to be more about the post capture processing. It's the combination of skills, understanding, and talent in finding, taking, and processing images the "Makes" or "Breaks" and photo.
Cheers, (One cent rebates offered on my 2 cent opinion)
Learn to trust and nurture an inner sense of what is visually aesthetic and beautiful instead of just relying on public knowledge of what and where beauty lies or the advice and direction of others. ...David
What are your thoughts, Michael?
Gary alluded to "found" photographs. Found photographs might include (but are not limited to) the more 'obvious' (read: literal) photographs of any location. These are the types of photographs ("scenics") that might be obivous to most people, not just photographers. Think: Glacier Point at Yosemite; south rim of Grand Canyon; etc. IMO, "made" photographs tend to be those that necessitate the eyes and imagination (or "vision") of the photograph's maker; potential images that many others might walk right by yet that beckon the 'maker' to further study.
What do you think about your work, Anil? Do you "take pictures" or do you "make photographs"?
What do you think about your work, Anil? Do you "take pictures" or do you "make photographs"?
I don't know but the more I think about it I guess I am closer to the former.
Guy
-PB
Guy
Thanks!
I think that we actually 'capture' a nascent image on film/digital media. We then interpret that image in the darkroom or PhotoShop, and then 'make' the photographic print.
-PB
Here's a photograph I can use as an example. In this case, my choice of where to stand, which lens to use, visualizing the crop on scene, when to release the shutter (the fog was swirly and quick-changing) and choice of film have all, dare I say, contributed to the making of this photograph.
Let's think about this for a second... who's asking the question, and who's responding?
Photographers.
I had a nice learning experience a few years back when I did my first and only arts and crafts festival. It was a major milestone for me... all the prep work, the expense and then finally two days of sitting in the hot sun worrying my prints would melt. But to the point, it was so revealing to hear all the comments from passer's-by: "I've got a shot like that," "Honey, you took one just like that in Yosemite," "I should just blow up that print I took on vacation instead of paying that kind of money," or "I've got shots like that."
What I'm getting at is that photographers (100% of the folks reading this) think we "make" photographs. In my opinion, most non-photographers, or the public in general, think photographers "take" pictures.
I think Guy's point about a cook making a meal is quite appropriate. Does a pianist make music, or just play? Does Tiger Woods create golf shots, or does he just hit a little white ball in the hole? It's all about point of view. We (generalizing photographers) are sensitive and sometimes defensive when we need to explain to a non-photographer the difference between making (creating) or simply taking (pnt-n-shooting) a picture.
We can all agree to disagree the difference between "making" and "taking" a photograph, but the moment we look at it from a certain perspective, I think as photographers, we're on the same page; we like to think we create. I certainly do. But I also recognize that I "snap" plenty of family vacation shots, birthday parties, etc. I'd like to think that I can distinguish between the times I think I'm creating images versus the time I'm just taking.
Thanks for the topic Anil.
Lon
From my perspective there is no "make" or "take", no either / or, I do both at the same time.
To be sure, Mother Earth provides the inspiration that motivates each of us to pursue our creative license. As "nature photographers" the distinction of "make or take" lies in our appreciation of nature, i.e. we are compelled to "make" photos of things that move us. We seek them out, sometimes at great expense and effort and once there capture that moment with all the skills we can muster so that we can "take" it with us, whether for our own personal use or to share our experience with others.
In other words, true nature photographers "make" photos because we have to .... snapshooters "take" photos because they are there.
Just my humble thoughts. Thanks!
That certainly is a common phrase along with "take" and "shoot". I personally don't use it but with my view camera rather talk in terms of exposing sheets of film while with my Coolpix use take or shoot. Maybe that is because make has always sounded too much like designing. After I have an image scanned or downloaded onto my computer, I still don't use that term since my personal style is about reproducing a scene or subject as best I may and not creating, designing, or making images. Thus talk in terms of processing an image file. ...David
I don't know, perhaps I have a different view on this. I can see everyone's point about making photographs. But, the general consensus I read is that taking photographs is viewed as something of a lesser value, at least in a artistic sense. I disagree. I think the intent might be different but the skill level involved is not any less. Tim
1) Some element of previsualization
2) The technical skill to translate your visualization onto film/digital
3) Deciding what to keep and how to display it
So, to me, to make a photo is a process that starts well before you press the shutter, and doesn't end until well after.
Another word I actually try pretty hard to avoid is "shoot/shot". In the typical context for the word, what is the outcome of a "nice shot"? Yeah, something dies when you get off a nice shot, and isn't that fundamentally opposite to the intentions of most photographers. Similarly, I'm not a big fan of the word "capture", and instead I'd like to use "preserve" or something like it. The terminology of photography is packed full of words that I perceive as having negative connotations, so of course photographers are going to want to pick new words to describe what they do.
Re: shoot/shot: I wonder, would a painter ever describe their technique as "slapping on the oils" or a finished piece as having "banged one out"? In my opinion, the slang we use to describe our photography is similarly debasing.
"So, to me, to make a photo is a process that starts well before you press the shutter, and doesn't end until well after."
To me this hits the nail on the head. I think the "making" of a photograph involves a lot more of intellectual participation before and after the shutter has been pressed.
The making of a photograph is the conscious creation of a photograph. It starts with an idea, it continues with searching for this idea in the outdoors - and here the making again is very literal. The photographer assembles elements he finds in the outdoors. May it be subject matter, light, angle of view etc.
He does not simply "take" what appears in his view-finder - like the snapshooter would do. The photographer "takes" elements found in nature and arranges them in is view-finder until he's got something that is a composition - the "taking" turns into "making". It involves a lot of scouting, waiting for light etc. It is not unlike from what a painter does: The painter as well arranges elements until he has a composition. The photographer does the same, but it might be even harder because he just cannot alter nature by his own hands. He must seek for that perfect alignment of elements - and he only finds it if he had already looked for it.
Of course, a snapshooter might come up with the same composition. But then it is only a coincidence and there is a big difference in the ways how the composition was achieved.
So, for me there is a big difference in taking and making a photograph, I think the term "making" a photograph emerged for a reason.
It's not just two different terms. It is an entirely different approach.
Regards, Dietrich