I make art by taking photographs
Real photographs, created in camera, 100% organic,
no digital additives and shit
Used to be mostly a taker, probably accentuated the last 4 years with two small boys. They move so darn fast...
Met up with a fellow APUGGER in Sydney recently who shoots 8x12 ULF and sometimes 2hr exposures. Now that was some scary stuff to mess with my head.
Two weekends ago, went out and worked seriously at making images. Now one of those images is going out in my first print exchange on APUG.
So I'm working to get better at making, but I still love the sometimes unexpected results of taking...
Last edited by Glenn Mathison; 04-07-2005 at 06:23 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: Spelling and minor revision.
Depends upon my mood
Like many here, I shoot both 35mm and MF. I like 35mm insofar as sometimes it gives me the speed and flexiblity to make quick shots. MF slows me down and I tend to fuss over shots and take my time.
Just my $0.02
Max Power, he's the man who's name you'd love to touch! But you mustn't touch! His name sounds good in your ear, but when you say it, you mustn't fear! 'Cause his name can be said by anyone!
Currently I am a taker. I have done some making and plan on expanding that part more in the future. I have done Very Little studio shoots and just Slightly more portrait work. I believe portraits would fall under the "make" catagory? All that posing and setting of lights and "would this background look better than that one"...
The "made" shots I have are all macro I did at home on the breakfast nook in the kitchen
I do both. I don't think they are exclusive of each other.
I am also a sinner and a grinner at times. In the past I found that sinning usually involved a lot of grinning.
I was also a smoker and a toker at one time, which often involved a lot of midnight joking.
"Fundamentally I think we need to rediscover a non-ironic world"
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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...
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...
...I'm a taker,although I do plan a lot of my photos.
A common mistake people made when designing something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
Computers are incredibly stupid,but they are capable of being incredibly stupid many millions of times a second.
Both said by Doug Adams
Only put off until tomorrow that which you are prepared to die having not done-Pablo Picasso
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 :-)