Hello,
The first attempt was easier than yesterday's. I think I am starting to isolate what the problem is,
what i see and what i want to capture never seem to line up.
I am starting to think that guy (can't remember his name) was right, when he said,
photographers don't take photographs they create them.
Not sure if its entirely true? What are your thoughts?
1ove, hobby.
Always believed that... I even stopped using terms like "take", "shoot", "capture" when I refer to photographs, it sounds too much like we're trying to steal or kill something/someone.
I prefer saying "making a photograph", because that's what we're doing, we are giving something of ours, mixing it with light and hopefully be given something back... it's a shared thing, don't you think?
Well made photograph by the way.
I suppose you are right, not sure i can gel with the word, 'made', but I do suppose if photography is 'creative art' then, something has to be 'created'; and to create, in my perception, is to bring something to being that was never there — which is ironic for photography, because the film/sensor 'captures' what already exists.
i think amma lose my mind over this. lol.
Can the sensor/film capture light? Or just an impression (as effect) of it? As such as long as there's a human element to the creation of a photograph there's also an individual expression in the way that light leaves an impression/effect and any subsequent additions/reductions done in post processing (also light effects). I believe that the most an individual brings of his own expression into the natural phenomena of light effects the more personal the impression/expression becomes.
Hmmm, your question, "can the sensor/film capture?" made me think of something else. But first yes, that's what they do — which, if thats what a film/sensor is suppose to do, then they are not aware of what is being 'captured', they are just responding to stimuli.
Then, I was wrong: a sensor/film does not capture what already exists; if they did, that would be like saying a mirror is 'creates' the reflected image. That image is created in our minds.
But, I digress — I agree, I suppose it is then true that, 'we are drawing with light'.
Photographs are definitely made. All those famous photographs in the last century went through a darkroom, digital or physical...
Getting the desired exposure with the desired depth of field is just the first step right? It's after all that that the magic happens. Subtle contrast changes, monochrome, saturation, all of those are part of the creative process, even with just using the digital darkroom, suble changes to the "negative" can transform a photo completely.
Definitely made.
Indeed.
@novocaine: "...All those famous photographs in the last century...", Photography has actually been officially around for almost 2 centuries now, since the 1820's, when Nicephore Niepce made his first "camera obscura" permanent photograph.
I'm pretty sure those were made too but I don't know them so they can't be *that* famous :)
lol!
Yeah, I guess... and those were made badly too:
