Those who take and those who make

[cliveh]

I suppose a prime example of a Taker would be Fox Talbot who was trying to find a recording medium for the image and a prime example of a Maker would be someone painting a picture with pixels on photoshop, that had no underlying photographic image.

 

[Chuck_P]

You make all the decisions regarding what the photo should be prior to pressing the shutter.

I agree.

I also agree the take/make distinction seems nonsensical, but here I am expounding on the concept, probably poorly at that. It's a process, not an event. This concept of "taking" never enters my thought process; I like the word "record". The process has a beginning and you work toward the end, and when you reach the end, you have made something, imo. The process kind of breaks down a bit for me when I consign myself to only wanting to reach the end via LrC, when I simply come to the conclusion that I will not expend paper on a particular negative. So, I reach my own end either on the computer screen with a negative scan or on paper in the darkroom under the enlarger, with something I can hold in my hands. At both ends, I believe I've 'made' something and I haven't 'taken' anything. But, I have "recorded" what I saw.......................and I am most satisfied when the end of the process is on paper, the accomplishment feeling is much greater and it's the ultimate end I strive to meet.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Well, then here's another one to mull over: can a photographer be a 'maker' as opposed to a 'taker', even if they do absolutely zero post-processing whatsoever? In other words: what kind of 'making' distinguishes the 'maker' from the 'taker'?



Thanks for getting it just right!

a taker accepts the scene and finds a composition in it, such as a landscape or street photographer. A maker designs the scene with the composition in mind, such as a studio or tabletop photographer.

 

[cliveh]

It seems that as the history of photography progresses, we do more making and less Taking/Recording.

 

[dpurdy]

Here is one for those still following.. Edward Weston gained his fame from making artsy out of focus fuzzy platinum portraits until he became disgusted with it. Then he became committed to photographing "The thing itself", everything sharp and printed on glossy silver gelatin paper so nothing could be hidden or disguised and he stopped or tried to stop retouching portraits. So did he go from a maker to a taker?

 

[GregY]

It seems that as the history of photography progresses, we do more making and less Taking/Recording.

I'd suggest that the tens of thousands of daily iphone photos disprove your claim....

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I "shoot" a camera and "take" a shot. Maybe "snap" a picture. Who says "make"? Maybe when I become famous.

 

[Vaughn]

I "shoot" a camera and "take" a shot. Maybe "snap" a picture. Who says "make"? Maybe when I become famous.

Who says 'make'? Artists.

Artists create -- which is a type of 'making'.

A camera is not a gun, and nothing at all like a gun, but if people wish to reference guns/hunting in connection to their use of cameras, that's cool. To 'shoot' a camera is well established in our various languages and is here to stay. I guess it makes photography feel like a much more macho activity...

 

[jeffreyg]

I checked my analog dictionary and the first definitions for make were to bring into existence and to cause to exist, create by forming or modifying materials and on and on. As far as take it was to get into one’s possession, to capture physically and to put down an image, likeness of or by as photography as well as on and on. So it seems to me that either is okay
To paraphrase Jerry Lee Lewis “there’s a whole lot of makin and takin going on “.

 

[Don_ih]

I suppose a prime example of a Taker would be Fox Talbot who was trying to find a recording medium for the image and a prime example of a Maker would be someone painting a picture with pixels on photoshop, that had no underlying photographic image.

That's what I assumed you meant. But, in photography discussion, the term "make a photograph" also refers to what you're calling "take a photograph". So most of the discussion here has been along those lines. Very few people who use film do much in the way of image manipulation (beyond the straightforward stuff like cropping, dust-removal, contrast adjustment, dodging-and-burning). So that leads people to consider the casual snapshot as taking a photo and the more careful selection of composition, focus, exposure, aperture, lighting - even of a spontaneous scene (like street photography - to be making a photo.

Then there's what Ralph said, which is taking a photo is when you aren't the creator or arranger of what's being photographed and making is when you have control over or have created what you're photographing (like a still-life, models in a studio, etc.).

So we're all talking about different things. As usual.

 

[jvo]

MAKE!

 

[Daniela]

I'm afraid the discussion needs to restart. There are also those who build...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Does it really matter whether one makes or takes OR both? I happen to do both.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm afraid the discussion needs to restart. There are also those who build...

Dang... another verb to wrestle over. I know for a fact that I don't build photos but know at least one photographer who does/did.

 

[Don_ih]

I'm afraid the discussion needs to restart. There are also those who build...

No. No one "builds" photos. There's just no comparison between building and photographing. Building is genuinely complex and tends to involve many different people with completely different skills.

Maybe building in a way similar to making something out of Lego....

 

[BrianShaw]

No. No one "builds" photos. There's just no comparison between building and photographing. Building is genuinely complex and tends to involve many different people with completely different skills.

Maybe building in a way similar to making something out of Lego....

Construct | Barbara Kasten

 

[Don_ih]

Construct | Barbara Kasten

You can take photos of building that took hundreds of people decades to make.

The photos are still only photos.

 

[MattKing]

No. No one "builds" photos. There's just no comparison between building and photographing. Building is genuinely complex and tends to involve many different people with completely different skills.

Maybe building in a way similar to making something out of Lego....

Jeff Wall builds - or perhaps constructs - photographs, in the way that directors put together movies.
His 1994 image, entitled "Untangling":

It is a colour cibachrome transparency on a light box
Measurements: 207.1 × 241.0 × 26.2 cm
The print made in 2006 is in the collection of the National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne

 

[Don_ih]

Building a set, working to establish an elaborate scene - are exactly that. Taking the photo is nothing more than composing, setting exposure, clicking the shutter.

 

[BrianShaw]

Building a set, working to establish an elaborate scene - are exactly that. Taking the photo is nothing more than composing, setting exposure, clicking the shutter.

Not if the goal of building that elaborate scene was specifically to produce a photograph. But if you parse it into those two elements as if they might not be related then, sure, that's a perspective.

 

[MattKing]

And what part of photography is visualizing the intended result in the first place?

 

[Don_ih]

And what part of photography is visualizing the intended result in the first place?

That's called "photography". But visualization is not actually a photo. Nor is it building.

It's easy to see you guys have never built anything.

 

[BrianShaw]

LOL. I'm going to have a Scotch. Santa left me some Johnnie Walker Blue.

 

[MattKing]

That's called "photography". But visualization is not actually a photo. Nor is it building.

It's easy to see you guys have never built anything.

Perhaps your definition of "building" is narrower than for some.

 

[Chuck_P]

And what part of photography is visualizing the intended result in the first place?

I don't know, it's not worth pursuing, I'm just glad you didn't say........"pre-visualizing".