Making Images – Not Taking Images

[James Fee]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/making-images.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/making-images.shtml</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Taking an image and making an image are two completely different animals. What I often see in landscape photography are photographers taking beautiful pictures, and performing minimal work on the image in postproduction before printing the image. For these photographers, they believe that their work relies on mastering the tools at hand – the camera and lens – and using them to best advantage in the field – not working on the image in postproduction. While many of these images are beautiful and compelling in their own right, I would suggest to these photographers that they have not availed themselves of the true magic of photography in the digital photographic era. We need not take beautiful pictures, we can make beautiful pictures – and the computer is the tool that lets us perform the magic."</i><br /><br />I'm not sure this article is really aimed at digital photographers since the type of camera can't really make you take better pictures. Any scanned photo can be processed the same way.<br /><br />How often do you "tweak" your photos in Photoshop or similar tools?

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I'm not a big fan of making pictures. It's starting to veer towards digital art more than photography already.

[Crocuta]

I tweak my photos in traditional ways and I don't see that's it' conceptually much different from when I used to crop, dodge and burn prints from slides in the old days. I crop and add subtle adjustments to contrast, color and sharpness to bring the best out of the image. I tend to maintain the integrity of the image in that, while I might clone out a power line or something else minor like that, I don't substantially alter the basics of what I saw. That is, I don't use Photoshop to make a herd of zebra when there were only three in the original image. In my own philosophy, that's still clearly photography.

Recently, though, I've played around a bit with the 'painting with light' idea that's along the lines of what Pete is talking about and it's pretty interesting. I'm as yet undecided if that's something I'll get into more, but I really do find myself understanding his point about using the computer to create the image "that reflects how I felt at the time I was in the field at the scene". Your camera cannot capture everything that you perceived... the full contrast, the temperature, the odor, the wind. If you can use the computer to create a composition that more fully conveys -- through light only -- the total feeling that you experienced, then that's what art is all about.

As a community, we may or may not decide not to call that 'photography', but I certainly think it's a valid form of artistic expression. Whichever way I decide to go for myself, I'm in no position to tell someone else that their idea of art is less valid than my own.

[adderx99]

i find that bracketing (fancy photography word for taking lots of shots) works the best for me. having the real thing from the camera is a million times better (easier) then post work, and besides, with digital cams, why not, its not like you are buying film, and you have the added bonus of instant gratification; you can view your shot right then, so you dont have any excuses not to get the perfict shot.

[Crocuta]

i find that bracketing (fancy photography word for taking lots of shots) works the best for me. having the real thing from the camera is a million times better (easier) then post work, and besides, with digital cams, why not, its not like you are buying film, and you have the added bonus of instant gratification; you can view your shot right then, so you dont have any excuses not to get the perfict shot.

Pete Myers isn't talking about using Photoshop to fix bad shots; he's talking about becoming creative with it. Effectively, he's suggesting that you might use Photoshop to make an image that doesn't represent what you saw so much as what you felt. I'm pretty sure we all agree that getting the best image in the first place is important. But he's suggesting going well beyond that.

Like you, since going digital, I bracket a lot. I'm just learning the nuances of my current camera and bracketing not only helps me to get the shot I wanted, but also helps me to learn more about this camera. And yet, the more I learn about Photoshop, the more impressed I am with its ability to create art of a completely new kind.

[SassKwatch]

I see little distinction between 'Taking' an image and 'Making' an image.

If you're using film, you're 'making' an image based on various camera settings (shutter speed, aperture, ISO, lens focal length, etc) and film characteristics (Velvia is different that Kodachrome). When using digital, the same camera settings come into play along with a bunch of software algorhythms written by the mfr of your particular device. In either case, it's an 'interpretation' of reality.......or 'making' an image.

This whole notion in the photographic community that there is some 'purity' of image as it comes 'straight' out of the camera and that any further manipulation in PS (or whatever) is somehow sacreligious is pretty bogus, IMO. The best photographic artists have always manipulated their images after it leaves the camera. In fact, sometimes such manipulation can bring an image back closer to reality rather than diverging from it.