Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by PhotoEcosse, Nov 21, 2015.
Learning, you are in good company! Lord Snowdon calls his photographs 'snaps'. Cheers, Oly
You mean you don't use the appropriate focal length, exposure, DoF and focus in any other kind of photography?
As for "pre-visualize", what does this actually mean? Visualizing means thinking about what the picture will look like. How do you pre-visualize?
Ansel Adams was a great photographer but not very good at explaining what he meant in a clear and concise fashion.
Are you familiar with the word "humblebrag"? I take it you are, but those who are not may care to Google the term.
For my part, I just take photographs, as do most of the non-pretentious photographers I know. Some are good; some are bad; but calling 'em "snaps" is as much an affectation as pretending always to "make" photographs.
I have always used the term snaps, everybody seems to know what that means in my neck of the woods......
The usage also fluctuates with fashion and who you are talking to. If an editor asks me for "a few snaps", I generally have a pretty good idea of what he wants. I've never had any native English speaker ask if I could "make" some pictures.
It seems however that I may have maligned Eric by saying that I find the "making-taking" distinction unbearably pretentious, because he has his own private definition of "making" which the rest of us call "printing".
I'd still be fascinated if anyone has a definition (short of comping, combination printing, etc.) of the frontier at which a "taken" picture becomes a "made" picture. Spotting? Cropping? Dodging and burning? Converting colour to B+W at the press of a button? Frances hand-colours photographs (she sold one at her exhibition yesterday) and this must be about as "made" as it gets; but she never refers to making pictures. She takes pictures; makes prints; hand colours them; and then, on a good day, sells them as "hand-coloured photographs".
What makes a good photograph. Is it the editing is it the use of available light. When shooting a model is it making sure her makeup is perfect. Is it making sure every strand of hair is right.
It seems to me the making gets lost in the taking. Either way it's all just ****ing words. In my own opinion and I've always thought it. Great photos are made in the end they just have to be taken.
Couldn't you say that you find a picture or that you arrange a picture, then you record the picture and then you do as Roger says and make a print and so on? It depends on whether your a professor of English or just an ordinary person.
This is my feeling. When everything is right, you take the picture. Sometimes you take it even when some things aren't right, so you have to do things to it afterwards. But it's still the picture you took.
Well, sort of. But I'm still looking for that elusive definition of the difference between a "taken" picture and a "made" picture. Some people appear to think it's important, and I'm still waiting for a convincing distinction.
If I arranged something on a table or whatever for a still life or similar, then I would say I made the picture, but took the photograph.
Otherwise, everything is taken.
No, Roger, I merely gave an example where with a landscape I might take or make. The same two situations may apply in other genres as well but I wasn't going to list them all or identify any possible exceptions. Especially on a Sunday afternoon/evening.
Moving on to street photography, for example, even though I favour a H C-B-style, one lens, 'Stealing' situation which would be entirely taking, would it not? I have switched lenses and added or removed filters while walking and stalking. Would that not start to leave the area of taking and move a bit or rather more toward making? Possibly. Probably. I do not mind. I have no strong feelings on this.
Previsualisation, as St Ansel described it, was having the process all the way to the finished print (or transparency) in mind before pressing the shutter release. This, to my mind, is more making the picture rather than taking the picture. IIRC, StA actually refered to H C-B in his, and agreed it was taking.
"Ansel Adams was a great photographer but not very good at explaining what he meant in a clear and concise fashion." < I can hear in my head his slight chuckle and snuffle as he pondered a hesitant reply to that. Happy days! Cheers, Oly
Hi Rog, no but doesn't matter, I can make a guess. Don't care. If you like, his verbal trope had a certain charm to it. If you don't like, tough. Too late. He's done it a lot. Posts above demonstrate he's not alone. Doesn't make any difference to the 'snaps' does it? Or me. Like Lord Snowdon, I'm amazed when my snaps 'come out OK'. Cheers, Oly
I cannot really see any point in trying to define a taken or a made picture (or should that be photo?). I would think most people, whether they have any interest in photography or not, would consider that a photo is taken by a camera, no matter how much subsequent processing has been applied. It all seems like pseudo-intellectualism to me, but from the no of posts, the distinction matters to some.
I went to a lecture many years ago and and the first words spoken was good pictures are made with what's between your ears and not the camera between your hands............
You're being generous in my view.
Who has done what a lot?
If you're talking about AA he was a great photographer but a rotten writer.
I don't think that the distinction really matters but, apart from the direction that the thread took, we might have had an interesting discussion.
I see a difference. Not a clear cut one and maybe not one susceptible to an easy definition. For what it's worth here's my shot.
At one end one sees something, raises the camera and clicks - a snapshot. No thought , no real input from the photographer. He has just taken a picture.
At the other end we have someone 'telling a story ' that's not immediately obvious. Making something of a scene that most of us might not see. Adding 'layers' as our literary friends might say. Maybe that's in camera, maybe on the computer later. IMHO it's not unreasonable to say that the second picture had been 'made'.
Or, to put it another way, a picture becomes 'made' when, as a result of post-production, be it darkroom or digital, it is impossible to go out and 'take' a shot corresponding to the end result.
No. That's not what I meant but what I meant might include post processing. I meant producing a picture that most of us might not spot. Could be unusual exposure or focus or deliberate camera movement- anything that change s the result to something other than a 'snapshot record'. Of course that includes later computer work but it's not exclusively that.
Separate names with a comma.