Are you a taker or a maker?

[haris]

Both

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I would be of the opinion that all photo is a form of making, but that we should not throw away the "taking" term as it is an apt metaphor for a particular kind of making process, which resembles closely that of taking. I'll stick to "taking" meaning "when you take it, it's not there afterwards". I take an apple from the table, it's now in my hands, and not on the table. The making part of photo that you can't escape is that a) you're creating something distinct than what was there before and b) you are making more or less conscious choices about how that object is going to be by using a film format, emulsion type, lens type, etc.

That said, I'm still saying "taking pictures" much more than "making pictures", because I seldom setup a scene in order to photograph it.

Think of it: in painting, would you say that a portrait is "making" or "taking" ? It's like a very, very slow snapshot of someone after all...

 

[BWGirl]

I wonder... I often take a photo of something that I have looked at & looked at. I generally go and look at something different times of the day and in different light trying to find the best photo to 'make'. This does not mean that I am successful...I am not sure how to be successful even when I have the best combination of light, shadow, contrast & subject.

It seems that I flounder... even when I am thoughtful & plan. Ah well... keep shooting & perhaps...

 

[eagleowl]

primarily...

...I'm a taker,although I do plan a lot of my photos.

 

[KenM]

Being primarily a landscape photographer, I think it's a two stage process : you take the initial negative, and then in the darkroom you 'make' the photograph. Sometimes the 'made' image matches the taken image quite closely - my three recent uploaded photographs fall into this category, as the prints required very little dodging and burning. However, the photograph 'Near Hesketh, Alberta' required extensive burning, and a substantial amount of bleaching to realize the photograph that I originally 'saw'. It truly was a 'made' image, that bears little resemblance to the original scene.

I guess I could have just quoted Eric's post above, and saved myself the extra typing

 

[BWGirl]

Being primarily a landscape photographer, I think it's a two stage process : you take the initial negative, and then in the darkroom you 'make' the photograph. Sometimes the 'made' image matches the taken image quite closely - my three recent uploaded photographs fall into this category, as the prints required very little dodging and burning. However, the photograph 'Near Hesketh, Alberta' required extensive burning, and a substantial amount of bleaching to realize the photograph that I originally 'saw'. It truly was a 'made' image, that bears little resemblance to the original scene.

I guess I could have just quoted Eric's post above, and saved myself the extra typing

Made or taken, they are breathtaking, Ken!

 

[Ornello]

I know that this forum covers a wide spectrum of photographic thought and practice. That is, perhaps, its best feature. Leave me define my terminology here. A taker is one responding intuitively and grabs a photo as inspired by circumstances. A maker is a person that is given to a more thoughtful approach.

I do not consider one approach to be better than the other. I think that every photographer on this forum does some of both. Primarily, though, we are one or the other. I am guessing that your decision is based on who you are, how you approach life and what are your areas of interest.

I am guessing also that the takers are more inclined to use a general method of exposure and development and the makers are more likely to use a more systematic approach. The takers I am conjecturing are more likely to use film in rolls and the makers more likely to use film in sheets.

I will start off. I consider myself to be a maker. I use a 35mm camera in a manner that may well offend Oscar Barnack's ghost. My primary interest is in scenic, nature and still life. I am inclined to think that all tripods are too damned light.

Now it is your turn.

Baker and candlestick maker....

 

[Claire Senft]

I am confused.

Are you implying that you start the photographic process by being a butcher?
I don't see why not, Leitz makes very sharp glass.

 

[joeyk49]

I'm more of a taker, with an aim to acquire more/better making skills.

Suzanne's comments are right on the money for me. I find myself always looking for pleasing images to take. As yet, my creative control mechanisms are limited to what are attached to my camera and my ability to use them.

Time will hopefully see changes in both my taking and making...for the better, I hope.

 

[Jose A Martinez]

taker, maker, obsever, participant

I'm a taker then maker.

I would like to introduce a new dimension here: if your are a taker, are you an observer or a participant.

I consider a HCB an observer and Robert Capa a participant.

I'm a taker-participant

Daniel

 

[freespiritedone]

combination of both, but why get caught in diction?

In response to this "taker" or "maker"...
As taker, I am social observer... documenting the moment. As maker, I am the photographer who is responsible for what my mind's eye records at the time. When I do a shoot, it usually revolves around a theme. The entire roll of film then becomes both in the creative process. It remains difficult to call it one or the either. The maker is technically the photographer... the "taker" could be anyone with a throwaway camera who just pushes the shutter release button. Thus, I do consider it by process alone to be a "maker" one who is working as social documentarian for self and recording the memories as well,for others.

 

[Loose Gravel]

I'm a bagger. I bag 'em.

 

[gandolfi]

maker - but no ttoo thoughtful, I fear...
intuitive - playfull maker, I guess.

I don't even think I make photographs... I make images.

 

[mjohnsonphoto]

New member here, so I'll just jump in. I agree with Gandolfi, I make images. As a landscape photographer, I am more concerned with the formal elements than particular subject matter (though serious thunderstorms get me going in a hurry.) I often find that I have been out for hours without exposing one sheet of film, or I wait for hours for the right combination of light and shadow to make the space work, the composition resolve, or to provide that certain eloquence to the most mundane subject matter.
I come to photography with a 17th century Dutch or Flemish aesthetic, so unresolved compositions are my curse. I see the world as wonderful chaos and my job, to organize it. (I know it's lame but it is my ball and chain.) I would describe this approach as intentional, rather than taking and I wish I were better at it.

 

[Rock Poper]

I'm a maker - shooting 6x7 roll I am interested in long exposures, 8 seconds too 40mins in the day time (going for a 6 hour once I get a new filter) - and all night star trails... there has to be a certain amount of setting up the shot in these instances, getting exposure correct, setting up a sturdy tripod position, tinkering with filters on and off for focus, setting up mirror up functions et cetera

'take the photo already!' I get from people ...

I have bought some 400 and 3200 film recently (usually shooting 50 or 100) and I want to work on 'taking' photos a bit more now thats its winter down here and long exposures are harder (condensation, wind, rain) -

i guess I like the extremes of ISO and exposure settings...

 

[Ole]

I haven't answered this yet????

I'm a finder. I walk around until I find an image, then try to capture it for my own satisfaction. The main thing is not in the taking or the making, but in the discovery.

 

[Rock Poper]

I walked out the house yesterday - saw a pic, ran inside loaded the Holga - snapped 3 pictures, ran for the bus, saw another pic (amazing fog here at the mo') - jumped off the bus and finshed the roll - another photographer was there also with a digital, his pic ended up in the newspaper today

tonight just bought a 16mm cine motion cam (Bolex RX4) - so for the moment I am a 'taker'

 

[Bob F.]

The Beeb are doing a series where 3 different pro photogs each week are given different digital cameras: one a high end Canon DSLR, one a point and shoot with zoom and another a 2 megapixel camera phone and asked to shoot some urban, industrial and rural scenes (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/features/digital-picture-britain.shtml) . They gave the camera phone to Joe Cornish last week. That was just vindictive. Never heard so many swear words on a photography program before...

Anyway, after spending the day on location getting snowed on and rained on, Martin Beckett made the observation while waiting for the right light as he lay face down on a freezing cold beach composing the shot that he was happy waiting all day if necessary for the right light, cloud formation etc because he was: "hunting, not shopping"...

Bob.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Maker.
I decide, my camera never decides anything.

 

[munz6869]

Of the two I'd probably select 'maker' (just because of the extreme level of faffing about I seem to enjoy within the process), but avoiding that level of self-pretension I generally describe the process as 'snapping' photos because it's funny and disarming and a little bit absurd for 4x5" and 8x10" which is what I mostly do these days.

Marc

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I've always felt that 'taking' and 'shooting' were unfortunate words for photography. I shoot 35mm and medium format rangefinder and rarely use a tripod. That said, I am still deliberately looking for photographs. The image itself may take 1/60th of a second or less to be recorded on the film, but I'm always observing the world around me for photographs to be made. Even when I don't have the camera with me. Whether you choose to shoot "from the hip" or set up a view camera with a tripod, you should always consider yourself engaged in a creative process.

2 cents

Your photos are very personal and creative. From the heart.

 

[Sirius Glass]

combination of both, but why get caught in diction?

In response to this "taker" or "maker"...
As taker, I am social observer... documenting the moment. As maker, I am the photographer who is responsible for what my mind's eye records at the time. When I do a shoot, it usually revolves around a theme. The entire roll of film then becomes both in the creative process. It remains difficult to call it one or the either. The maker is technically the photographer... the "taker" could be anyone with a throwaway camera who just pushes the shutter release button. Thus, I do consider it by process alone to be a "maker" one who is working as social documentarian for self and recording the memories as well,for others.

Why the need to be Boolean? Why not do both? I do.