Do you take pictures or make pictures?
Is there a difference?
I've been a pro photographer for years, decades actually. And my photography has evolved, as it does for us all, in one way or other. So, allow me to ask you a challenging question...
Do you take pictures or make pictures?
If that sounds strange, I'll explain. There is a profound difference between the two phrases. Taking pictures is what I did for most of my career. On assignment I'd shoot far too many frames in order to bring back the "money shots". I'd shoot vertical and horizontal, change lenses and aspect ratios, run from here to there... you get the picture (play on words intentional).
Making a picture is an entirely different practice. It's more akin to the merging of Zen and art. When you make a picture you arrive at the scene prepared, maybe after casing it out on a prior visit or researching it through various resources. You've accounted for time of day, allowed for weather changes, and have an idea - a vision - of what you wish to capture.
You set up your equipment, you look around for best locations, you take a deep breath, you compose and recompose and you take a shot. You assess. Is the lighting correct? Is the composition effective? Did I capture the mood?
If you're making a picture, that one shot is often enough. Or you might make one or two more. Enough. Done. Move on. The real work will come during post and printing. True art is work and not simply the result of finger applied to shutter release.
I'm often in the company of fellow photographers. In the course of a day they will fill two or three storage cards. They are so busy taking pictures, keeping one's finger depressed on the shutter release button, that they have not thoughtfully captured the image they might have, through hard work, made into an artistic statement.
I'm not criticizing here. If you are shooting a sporting event, or recording wildlife in the Serengeti, you want to shoot fast and lots. I get it. I did that for assignments.
What I urge you to consider, however, is that slowing down and making a picture has its own rewards. It will undoubtedly make you a better photographer, more comfortable with your gear and more able to capture your vision with intent, rather than by the law of averages. If printing is your end goal - and I sure hope it is - then you want that print to be the culmination of making, of creating a picture.
I offer you some questions to consider:
Do you find yourself taking too many pictures?
Do you take a deep breath at a scene and vision what the ideal image of it would be, so that when you nail it you know it and move on?
Have you ever gone out for an entire day and intentionally disciplined yourself to take one - and only one - picture of scenes that you want to preserve?
Have you taken the time to learn the ins and outs of your post-processing software?
Do you spend enough time with your top-rated images to perfect them in post?
Do you have a color-managed workflow that results in accurate prints?
Do you think through how you will display your fine art prints to best effect?
Think about how you might reduce just taking pictures and hone the art of making them. I'd be interested in hearing from those of you who have already embarked on that journey or have considered doing so.
I think a point that is left out, at least explicitly, is being with the landscape. It sounds corny, but I can't think of a phrase that hasn't been beaten to death. Anyway, this shouldn't be work in my opinion. For me, it's sort of like listening with my eyes. At some point potential compositions may become apparent. My initial refinement is intuitive. Only when I start to worry about the edges of a composition or details of flow within it does my activity in the field start to take on a sense of formality. I generally make a single version of a composition unless it involves chaos. Then I may make several variations. I've heard of people teaching how to find order in chaos, but I think appreciating the chaos is equally important.
When I worked with transparency film in my 4x5, the final result was judged on a light table. It was either there, or it wasn't. Now those transparencies have been scanned, and I still find that I do very little post-processing when the transparency and the scan are "right." That doesn't seem to be the case with digital capture, where the process involves more steps; more choices. I may be the only wishy-washy artist (non-artist?) out there, but I have on more than a few occasions produced several versions of a single digital capture that said different things to me, and that I have liked equally. That was true even after looking at the prints on the wall for awhile. And now there is the added dimension of being able to remake a color photograph as black and white! I can't speak to what other people go through, but I think some of my images are better in color and others are better in black and white. Some I like equally in color and B&W.
So here I am, trying to respond without intellectualizing or trying to anticipate what other people would prefer. This seems natural in the field, but there are times when the digital darkroom offers too many "valid" alternatives to what I felt when I started. Am I making a photograph? I'm certainly trying.
Les, off topic, I'm working with my new P7570, and am learning rapidly! A difficulty: when I change rolls of paper I need to pin down the loose edge of the roll removed. I've been using 'blue' painters tape, but it's too sticky. Do you use something like this and if so what brand and model?
thanks.