I must admit, and not with any sense of pride, that I have an involuntary eye roll that comes out when someone argues that "make" is gentler than "take" and therefor preferred. We attribute our own meaning to words, and the process of making or creating is inherently also destructive or manipulative, just like taking implies. Sometimes it strikes me as one of those things that people with a lot of extra time on their hands spend worrying about. I'd rather focus on taking (or making, whatever your preference is) more photos.
This is such an important distinction, making vs taking, because it gets at the core of what photographers do. Whether staged or impromptu, you make a photo, and you do so with your very own bare hands. (Clicking the shutter is just the beginning. Think of all else you do with your hands to finish making your picture. Not to mention how many clicks and how much camera holding and other efforts it took to make one compelling picture.) To take a photograph implies it existed before you photographed and then stole it from someone. It’s this very notion that confuses people about photography and can give it a bad name. In my street photography courses, we talk about this very idea because many people don’t know how to think about what they are actually doing on the street and whether it’s morally or ethically wrong. Theres a lot more to being an ethical photographer than just word choice, or sussing this out intellectually, but to understand the importance of photography in society is partially to understand that a photograph is made not taken—and with a great deal of effort.
I work with intention, so I've been saying for a long time that I make photographs. Even though I work on the street, it is reality that interests me. I would not, and could not, imagine the photographs that I make before I make them. What I get from the world around me is much richer than anything I could construct.
The comparison between Sternfeld and Crewdson is an interesting one. They both make photos, but with different intentions. Sternfeld is more more familiar to me. As where Crewdson, and Jeff Wall, are more like painters in that they construct a fictional space based on idea in their head. I actually think Crewdson is more like, and influenced by, Edward Hopper on a visual level, and Diane Arbus for her ability to disturb.
To my eye, Crewdson and Wall operate in the "uncanny valley" that exists between reality and fiction, looking too perfect to be real. But yet, there is always a cognitive dissonance between what we are seeing and what we know reality looks like. They make you think that what you're looking at is familiar, but yet it seems so alien.
Sternfeld give us the humans, but Crewdson gives us a very lifelike android experience. They are both really interesting, and completely different. I like both and find their ability to provoke and prod the viewer to look deeper, absolutely fascinating.
I definitely make an image. I am mentally looking for things that distract and moving around to not have them in frame. I will wait for something to happen within this chosen frame. I'm selecting my f stop and shutter speed or possibly changing them to alter the feeling. Even with available light there are choices to be made, shoot in the shade, sun, split light, incorporate shadows.Taking a picture for me is a snapshot that I am grabbing in the moment.
To take a picture implies a transfer information from the “real” world to an image holding 2D medium with no influence from the operator.
To make a picture implies the operator has had a hand in forming the resulting image by making decisions that affect the look and feel of the finished product.
I suggest that every person wielding a camera is making images. Where is the optical system pointed, what is the format., when is the shutter tripped and for how long? What optical system is chosen for the task; what light sensitive material is being used; what processing happens after the click (in wet darkrooms what chemicals are used in digital what processor is being used and how is it programmed.) After the initial processing what steps are taken to modify the image; whether it’s a bit of burning and dodging under an enlarger, choice of chemistry and paper in a wet environment or extensive digital “post processing” paper/ ink combination or a screen for viewing.
Each and every decision that goes into what ends up as a picture has a significant influence on making the final result.
It’s interesting that you wrote about this. I was thinking the exact same thing recently and had considered a post about it on my Substack.
I feel I’m of the “taking a photo” camp. To me the scenario was always going to be there or occur, and as a photographer, we just happen to be there when it does.
Now does that mean we don’t make photos? Absolutely we do. I think we make them when we do any kind of manipulation to alter them from their original form. As a photographer I think we do both but I think we take them first before we do anything else with them. Just my opinion.
I definitely say make is key and something I talk w my students about. I guess I feel like Crewdson at this point is not that interesting. He once was for me and my students. I notice students are not so intrigued as they once were w his work. So, I guess my question for you and the audience of this newsletter is _ are there new ways that "making" a photograph has progressed since Crewdson and the other photographers of the early 2000s introduced this notion. Alot has to do w photography's relationships w other mediums (painting most specifically) "Making" is a common idea now and even a common image on Instagram can be made not taken. Feel like more can be discussed here.
Well... I use this terminology more in the critiquing and editing process. To take is associated more with the snapshot, ill-conceived, ill-framed picture. Whereas the Made photograph, is more considered visually and fits within a larger framework.
I think, as culled from these responses, a larger issue in longevity is the likable wow factor, vs the analytical work and questions of what holds up. The age-old Kantian question of emotion vs cognition.
To 'take' something is to assume that it's there for the taking. To 'make' something is to produce something that wouldn't otherwise exist without your input. Both of these approaches can be applied to commercial photography work or artistic photography work. The application of either approach is selected to serve the desired outcome or message. I think that in the purest sense as soon as you add a process operation (film development, photoshop, lightroom, etc.) to the chain of events you are 'making' a photograph.
For me, the 'take' versus 'make' debate means something different. I get what we are discussing, and it makes sense. However, to me, the use of 'make' has always related more to intention than to process. I fall in the 'make' camp. I aim to co-create with the subject (animate or not) an image together as a result of a collaboration. When I hear myself or others say 'take,' it always evokes a sense of somehow 'stealing' an image, creating unilaterally without partnership.
In the way that it is being discussed, I agree with Landry Major, and also feel 'make' is what I try do as a photographer.
Watching Stephen Leslie's video about Crewdson's work felt like scratching an itch that needed to be scratched. I guess I'm not the only one feeling that the work is self-aggrandizing and shallow. - and not just the work, anything he says if you've ever listened to him talk about himself or his his method.
I like to think of my work as making images, even when it's a straight-up document. In my 40 years of teaching I always tried to impress upon my students that the act of making involves awareness and active choices as part of the process. It's not required to create a backdrop or manipulate a subject to be "making" a photo, but the phrase taking a photo just seems more passive. Whether inclined toward observational photography or invented images, the photographer who is actively engaged in intentional work is making choices, whether responding to the way the light is falling in that moment, or choosing when to release the shutter, or building a set and arranging subjects. I think a picture "taker" is not paying attention. I suspect nearly all of your readers "make" images, even if they are only giving themselves credit for "taking" them.
Depends - some people like Julie Blackmon make or construct images with intent and detail. Most Street Photographers recognize something and make an exposure to capture the image. That could be defined as taking it but they still have frame it and that’s a form of construction. It’s good to be aware of these types of questions and for all photographers to give some thought to the process and the history of the medium. But when you’re photographing don’t over think it and just react to the images around you. Winogrand left us a host of great quotes about these kinds of questions without finite answers.
So I’m sure this topic is subjective to me. I think I do both when I’m out and about especially in a natural environment. I believe the picture presents itself to me and I simply take the picture however, there’s been many times that I stage things in my home studio for still life and macro photography and I feel in that instance I am making the photo because I’m setting up everything the way I want it to capture exactly the way I want it and I control everything in terms of lighting composition and texture, etc. That being said, I guess I could do the same thing in a natural scene even though I can’t control all the elements, I can surely frame it a certain way, or wait for a certain lighting conditions or use different focal lengths. To me, I really like to see photographers take pictures of the same things and show the perspective that they have showing what they see and what they’re trying to tell. To me that all makes it very interesting.
Your premise, Mr Adams, is a very true and glorious understatement. There is a tremendous depth of layered information with both this question and its answers.
Amy Touchette's "...to understand the importance of photography in society is partially to understand that a photograph is made not taken..." hints at this complexity, but I don't quite fully agree. To explain - and not in any game with semantics - I would say pictures are both made AND taken. Consequently, I would say that MOST - not all by any means - but most photographs are simply taken. These photographs are willfully given up by their subjects which (according to Kodak surveys from years ago) are generally of family members seeking to extend a memory and its time of enjoyment. Photographs are the closest thing we have to time machines for that...
"Serious" photographers - like those who are part of this discussion, following your enterprise or those pursuing the medium in an artful sense will, generally speaking, "make" their photographs. I feel like I have done both - inadvertently "taking" in my early days of learning photography - but, now, with much more purpose after some 50 years I "make" most of my images.
I must admit, and not with any sense of pride, that I have an involuntary eye roll that comes out when someone argues that "make" is gentler than "take" and therefor preferred. We attribute our own meaning to words, and the process of making or creating is inherently also destructive or manipulative, just like taking implies. Sometimes it strikes me as one of those things that people with a lot of extra time on their hands spend worrying about. I'd rather focus on taking (or making, whatever your preference is) more photos.
This is such an important distinction, making vs taking, because it gets at the core of what photographers do. Whether staged or impromptu, you make a photo, and you do so with your very own bare hands. (Clicking the shutter is just the beginning. Think of all else you do with your hands to finish making your picture. Not to mention how many clicks and how much camera holding and other efforts it took to make one compelling picture.) To take a photograph implies it existed before you photographed and then stole it from someone. It’s this very notion that confuses people about photography and can give it a bad name. In my street photography courses, we talk about this very idea because many people don’t know how to think about what they are actually doing on the street and whether it’s morally or ethically wrong. Theres a lot more to being an ethical photographer than just word choice, or sussing this out intellectually, but to understand the importance of photography in society is partially to understand that a photograph is made not taken—and with a great deal of effort.
I work with intention, so I've been saying for a long time that I make photographs. Even though I work on the street, it is reality that interests me. I would not, and could not, imagine the photographs that I make before I make them. What I get from the world around me is much richer than anything I could construct.
The comparison between Sternfeld and Crewdson is an interesting one. They both make photos, but with different intentions. Sternfeld is more more familiar to me. As where Crewdson, and Jeff Wall, are more like painters in that they construct a fictional space based on idea in their head. I actually think Crewdson is more like, and influenced by, Edward Hopper on a visual level, and Diane Arbus for her ability to disturb.
To my eye, Crewdson and Wall operate in the "uncanny valley" that exists between reality and fiction, looking too perfect to be real. But yet, there is always a cognitive dissonance between what we are seeing and what we know reality looks like. They make you think that what you're looking at is familiar, but yet it seems so alien.
Sternfeld give us the humans, but Crewdson gives us a very lifelike android experience. They are both really interesting, and completely different. I like both and find their ability to provoke and prod the viewer to look deeper, absolutely fascinating.
I definitely make an image. I am mentally looking for things that distract and moving around to not have them in frame. I will wait for something to happen within this chosen frame. I'm selecting my f stop and shutter speed or possibly changing them to alter the feeling. Even with available light there are choices to be made, shoot in the shade, sun, split light, incorporate shadows.Taking a picture for me is a snapshot that I am grabbing in the moment.
To take a picture implies a transfer information from the “real” world to an image holding 2D medium with no influence from the operator.
To make a picture implies the operator has had a hand in forming the resulting image by making decisions that affect the look and feel of the finished product.
I suggest that every person wielding a camera is making images. Where is the optical system pointed, what is the format., when is the shutter tripped and for how long? What optical system is chosen for the task; what light sensitive material is being used; what processing happens after the click (in wet darkrooms what chemicals are used in digital what processor is being used and how is it programmed.) After the initial processing what steps are taken to modify the image; whether it’s a bit of burning and dodging under an enlarger, choice of chemistry and paper in a wet environment or extensive digital “post processing” paper/ ink combination or a screen for viewing.
Each and every decision that goes into what ends up as a picture has a significant influence on making the final result.
It’s interesting that you wrote about this. I was thinking the exact same thing recently and had considered a post about it on my Substack.
I feel I’m of the “taking a photo” camp. To me the scenario was always going to be there or occur, and as a photographer, we just happen to be there when it does.
Now does that mean we don’t make photos? Absolutely we do. I think we make them when we do any kind of manipulation to alter them from their original form. As a photographer I think we do both but I think we take them first before we do anything else with them. Just my opinion.
I definitely say make is key and something I talk w my students about. I guess I feel like Crewdson at this point is not that interesting. He once was for me and my students. I notice students are not so intrigued as they once were w his work. So, I guess my question for you and the audience of this newsletter is _ are there new ways that "making" a photograph has progressed since Crewdson and the other photographers of the early 2000s introduced this notion. Alot has to do w photography's relationships w other mediums (painting most specifically) "Making" is a common idea now and even a common image on Instagram can be made not taken. Feel like more can be discussed here.
Well... I use this terminology more in the critiquing and editing process. To take is associated more with the snapshot, ill-conceived, ill-framed picture. Whereas the Made photograph, is more considered visually and fits within a larger framework.
I think, as culled from these responses, a larger issue in longevity is the likable wow factor, vs the analytical work and questions of what holds up. The age-old Kantian question of emotion vs cognition.
To 'take' something is to assume that it's there for the taking. To 'make' something is to produce something that wouldn't otherwise exist without your input. Both of these approaches can be applied to commercial photography work or artistic photography work. The application of either approach is selected to serve the desired outcome or message. I think that in the purest sense as soon as you add a process operation (film development, photoshop, lightroom, etc.) to the chain of events you are 'making' a photograph.
For me, the 'take' versus 'make' debate means something different. I get what we are discussing, and it makes sense. However, to me, the use of 'make' has always related more to intention than to process. I fall in the 'make' camp. I aim to co-create with the subject (animate or not) an image together as a result of a collaboration. When I hear myself or others say 'take,' it always evokes a sense of somehow 'stealing' an image, creating unilaterally without partnership.
In the way that it is being discussed, I agree with Landry Major, and also feel 'make' is what I try do as a photographer.
Watching Stephen Leslie's video about Crewdson's work felt like scratching an itch that needed to be scratched. I guess I'm not the only one feeling that the work is self-aggrandizing and shallow. - and not just the work, anything he says if you've ever listened to him talk about himself or his his method.
Thank you for that.
I like to think of my work as making images, even when it's a straight-up document. In my 40 years of teaching I always tried to impress upon my students that the act of making involves awareness and active choices as part of the process. It's not required to create a backdrop or manipulate a subject to be "making" a photo, but the phrase taking a photo just seems more passive. Whether inclined toward observational photography or invented images, the photographer who is actively engaged in intentional work is making choices, whether responding to the way the light is falling in that moment, or choosing when to release the shutter, or building a set and arranging subjects. I think a picture "taker" is not paying attention. I suspect nearly all of your readers "make" images, even if they are only giving themselves credit for "taking" them.
Depends - some people like Julie Blackmon make or construct images with intent and detail. Most Street Photographers recognize something and make an exposure to capture the image. That could be defined as taking it but they still have frame it and that’s a form of construction. It’s good to be aware of these types of questions and for all photographers to give some thought to the process and the history of the medium. But when you’re photographing don’t over think it and just react to the images around you. Winogrand left us a host of great quotes about these kinds of questions without finite answers.
So I’m sure this topic is subjective to me. I think I do both when I’m out and about especially in a natural environment. I believe the picture presents itself to me and I simply take the picture however, there’s been many times that I stage things in my home studio for still life and macro photography and I feel in that instance I am making the photo because I’m setting up everything the way I want it to capture exactly the way I want it and I control everything in terms of lighting composition and texture, etc. That being said, I guess I could do the same thing in a natural scene even though I can’t control all the elements, I can surely frame it a certain way, or wait for a certain lighting conditions or use different focal lengths. To me, I really like to see photographers take pictures of the same things and show the perspective that they have showing what they see and what they’re trying to tell. To me that all makes it very interesting.
Fascinating read. Thanks for sharing.
Your premise, Mr Adams, is a very true and glorious understatement. There is a tremendous depth of layered information with both this question and its answers.
Amy Touchette's "...to understand the importance of photography in society is partially to understand that a photograph is made not taken..." hints at this complexity, but I don't quite fully agree. To explain - and not in any game with semantics - I would say pictures are both made AND taken. Consequently, I would say that MOST - not all by any means - but most photographs are simply taken. These photographs are willfully given up by their subjects which (according to Kodak surveys from years ago) are generally of family members seeking to extend a memory and its time of enjoyment. Photographs are the closest thing we have to time machines for that...
"Serious" photographers - like those who are part of this discussion, following your enterprise or those pursuing the medium in an artful sense will, generally speaking, "make" their photographs. I feel like I have done both - inadvertently "taking" in my early days of learning photography - but, now, with much more purpose after some 50 years I "make" most of my images.