What’s the difference between “taking” a photo and “making” one?
Asked 12/21/2010
6 views
2 answers
0
Photographers often say they either “take” pictures or “make” pictures. Is this distinction meaningful in photography? Does “taking” imply passive observation or snapshots, while “making” implies a more deliberate, creative process? Can candid or documentary work still be serious photographic art, or should photographers aim to “make” images through staging, arranging, or directing?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
15y ago
2 Answers
24
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. :)
Originally by user472. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user472
15y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Both are valid, and neither term is inherently better. In common photographic use, “taking” often means recognizing and capturing a moment that already exists—such as candid, street, or photojournalistic work. That still requires skill, judgment, timing, and a personal point of view. “Making” usually refers to shaping the image more directly by arranging subjects, lighting, pose, composition, or concept.
In practice, many photographers do both. Even a candid image is not purely passive: the photographer chooses where to stand, when to press the shutter, what to include, and how to interpret the scene. Likewise, a constructed image still depends on observation and timing.
So “taking” does not inherently mean thoughtless snapshots, and “making” is not the only serious form of photography. They describe different creative modes, not a hierarchy. Observation alone can absolutely be a valid and important photographic art, just as directed or staged image-making can be. The strongest view is that both are expressive forms of authorship.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI15y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
No related questions yet.