Makers or Takers

[cliveh]

This maybe in the wrong thread, so mods please move if not correct. But now photography seems to centre around making and camera/computer technology, shouldn't there be sections in the forum for takers and makers?

 

[BrianShaw]

Can you please better explain the difference? There's already areas for hybrid photography, and for AI as well. What would you want that is diferent?

 

[warden]

@cliveh I’m not sure what the difference is between takers and makers.

 

[cliveh]

Photographers who record what they see and those who record what they see and then make it into something different.

 

[Don_ih]

I make what I see into something different when using a camera. A photo is not what I see.

Anyway, we already had this discussion.

 

[cliveh]

I make what I see into something different when using a camera. A photo is not what I see.

Anyway, we already had this discussion.

My photographs are what I see with zero manipulation.

 

[Don_ih]

My photographs are what I see with zero manipulation.

The photo itself is a manipulation of what you see.

 

[mshchem]

My photographs are what I see with zero manipulation.

What aperture and shutter speed are you? What sensitivity are you? Everything is manipulation.

I'm not chasing this rabbit.

 

[Don_ih]

Frankly, I don't see the value of any such distinction. It is totally meaningless with regard to result. No one really cares if someone else's photo was or was not manipulated, unless it makes some truth claim (like journalism or evidence). No one really cares much about anyone else's photos, for that matter. Yes, it can be a point of pride that you do no more than frame and expose and develop and make a straight print. That's swell. But it's not enough to dichotomize the world.

 

[Elmarc]

The photo itself is a manipulation of what you see.

Agreed. And sometimes it comes out better than what you saw.

 

[MattKing]

“I photograph to see what the world looks like in photographs.”

Garry Winogrand

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

"No great artist ever sees things are they really are.
If he did, he would cease to be an artist."

.::Oscar Wilde.

 

[koraks]

This maybe in the wrong thread, so mods please move if not correct. But now photography seems to centre around making and camera/computer technology, shouldn't there be sections in the forum for takers and makers?

I've moved this to its present subforum of "Ethics and Philosophy".

As to the question whether we should make a distinction in forum structure on this basis: currently it seems that the distinction is conceptually so vague that any separation would be simply untenable. So the simple answer is "no."

 

[koraks]

On a more personal note:

Underlying the supposed distinction appears to be a normative judgement about the comparative value of different approaches, which is a very problematic basis for forum policy and I'd personally be dead against even considering formulating such policies. This would alter the simple answer into a resounding "hell no!"

 

[warden]

Photographers who record what they see and those who record what they see and then make it into something different.

I understand now, thanks. It reminds me of photographers on Instagram that draw attention to their lack of editing by adding the hash tag #SOOC, meaning straight out of the camera.

I’m not interested in photographic purity tests, but if I was, I would suggest that a pinhole camera with a paper negative might be the epitome of that concept. I mean, why sully your hard work by passing light through a lens that distorts everything, and then pass it through a second lens on an enlarger? Eww, gross! ;-)

 

[BrianShaw]

On a more personal note:

Underlying the supposed distinction appears to be a normative judgement about the comparative value of different approaches, which is a very problematic basis for forum policy and I'd personally be dead against even considering formulating such policies. This would alter the simple answer into a resounding "hell no!"

BINGO

 

[loccdor]

Emancipate yourself from the mental manacles that come from regarding a manual camera as a device that does not manipulate or manufacture.

I find this sort of thing interesting: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/manus

 

[cliveh]

I don't think I explained what I meant very well. I'm not talking about general photographic manipulation that exists for both analogue and digital, but the huge gulf of the specrum that exists between those who are trying to record a scene and say AI turning a picture of a woodland scene into a portrait. Many images now seem to be mostly about making and less about recording.

 

[koraks]

@cliveh we already have an AI section and it sees virtually no use. Whatever problem you're trying to solve, I don't think it exists on this forum.

 

[BrianShaw]

I don't think I explained what I meant very well. I'm not talking about general photographic manipulation that exists for both analogue and digital, but the huge gulf of the specrum that exists between those who are trying to record a scene and say AI turning a picture of a woodland scene into a portrait. Many images now seem to be mostly about making and less about recording.

(AI response) Top AI image-making forums and communities include Reddit's r/aiArt, NightCafe's Art Forum, and the PC Gamer AI image generator megathread. These platforms are ideal for sharing, exploring, and discussing AI art creation, tools, prompts, and workflows.

 

[Alan Townsend]

This maybe in the wrong thread, so mods please move if not correct. But now photography seems to centre around making and camera/computer technology, shouldn't there be sections in the forum for takers and makers?

This is an ancient argument. Look up "F64 group", then "pictorialism". These are hundred year old terms.

 

[mshchem]

Robin Williams "Reality, What a Concept!"

 

[Alan Townsend]

I don't think I explained what I meant very well. I'm not talking about general photographic manipulation that exists for both analogue and digital, but the huge gulf of the specrum that exists between those who are trying to record a scene and say AI turning a picture of a woodland scene into a portrait.

A woodland scene is already a portrait. A portrait of the trees, shrubs, grasses. and other living things. Can't see that woodland because of the trees.

Many images now seem to be mostly about making and less about recording.

By "making" you really mean "faking" and by "recording"you mean f64 group realism through pictorialism era through digiral editing era? The confusing language is just confusing. Things haven't changed much, just new tools. Your method is true art and everyone else is living in the past.

 

[Vaughn]

Photographers who record what they see and those who record what they see and then make it into something different.

And there are photographers who’s way of seeing is what is being recorded without any further need of making it ‘something different’.

Many different approaches without having to resort to a take/make dichotomy.

 

[MattKing]

“I photograph to see what the world looks like in photographs.”

Garry Winogrand

"No great artist ever sees things are they really are.
If he did, he would cease to be an artist."

.::Oscar Wilde.

Oscar Wilde and Garry Winogrand.
What an interesting couple!