Does a photographer take pictures or make pictures?

Question

Most people speak of the process of photography as taking pictures. However, many serious photographers instead refer to making pictures.

One might be inclined to dismiss this as jargon, but there's clearly a difference in attitude. "Making" implies a creative process, whereas "taking" has negative connotations: appropriation, or even stealing. Or, not so negative: "to capture the moment"; the ability of a photograph to extract the essence of a scene, preserve it, and share it. But to flip back again, can one really do this well without also making something new? Even when the scene isn't staged, the photographer has some level of authorial responsibility.

So, the question: is taking really so bad? Does it inherently mean thoughtlessness, and rapid-fire snapshots? Should every genuine photographer be encouraged to engage in making? Or can taking photographs as observation alone be a valid, serious form of the art?

Asked by mattdm

Answer

I think each process has equal merit, just based on my own experience of doing a Project 365. Doing that project, with an express goal of not being overly repetitive, I've had to do a lot of different things and that really means both taking and making pictures:

Taking

This, to me, is the art of seeing the moment and taking it. Perhaps the jargon doesn't really imply this, but that is how I see it. Henri Cartier-Bresson was the master of this sort of thing, holding onto ordinary moments in time in such a way as to enspire and educate us. He didn't create the picture, he saw it, and captured it. This, I think, is the essence of taking a picture. Candid photography or photojournalism really falls into this and to master it means having an eye for the moment.

Now, the negative connotation on this would probably be the snapshot style, basically just capturing an image with out concept of framing, light, obstructions, etc. This is, in some ways, the classic tourist shooting I suppose and forms the basis for differentiating casual shooters versus advanced amateurs or pros.

Making

In this end of the spectrum, it's about putting the conditions in place for the image. It's about creating the lighting, or observing the lighting, and positioning for the image you know is to come. It can be as detailed and controlled as the almost cinematic work of Dave Hill or as studied and patient of the work of Ansel Adams. This is where the fine art, landscape, and similar works fall into and, to master this, you need to have the ability to envision the result and prepare for it.

For making a shot, the negative connotation, to me, is the complete setup does everything for you. For example, you can buy devices such as the StopShot that, once everything is set up, does all the work, including triggering the shutter. It's basically turn everything on and let it go to work and you'll see this often with water drops. Don't get me wrong, the images can be great, but to me it loses something when the finger isn't on the shutter, a machine is.

Conclusion

Now, I'm obviously not putting my meagre efforts into the same class as some of the masters I've listed, but I think I've tried to do both of these at various times. To be honest, I think I've had more success at making pictures, controlling the conditions of the outcome, but taking pictures is also fun and rewarding, the element of surprise can be a bonus. Exercising both modes can, I think, make you a better all around photographer. At the very least, I think it makes for more fun. :)

Answered by John Cavan

Check more discussion of this question.