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