Taking photographs or making photographs?

I took photos when I first started travelling, but I stopped doing it because I cant make photos. As in they dont capture what it was like for me to be in a particular place or situation. When I showed the photos to people, I knew by their comments that the photos did not show what I wanted them to show. So, now I keep the pictures in my head, as one TravelBlog member described it by private message.

People suggest all kinds, such as getting a better camera, taking photography lessons...., but I know there is more to it than that. Many TravelBlog members have good cameras but only some take photos that capure the feeling. But, I still dont know if it is my feelings which are being evoked by looking at the photos, or if it is the feeling the photographer intended to express in the photo.

Mel Reply to this

I interpreted the question as; (as Stephanie with art vs. function)

To take a photo - point the camera and capture the obvious.

To make a photo - something that required some work or a creative step - eg. getting down and shooting at an unusual angle, framing, looking for contrasts or waiting for that exact moment that something interesting happens.

I do both - though the first is easier - I have to be in the right mood for the second.

One other way to look at it might be to look at the verb to take - an approach that gives nothing back to either the subject or viewer... Reply to this

Do you take photographs or do you make photographs?

This linguistic nuance is a distinction without a difference in my humble opinion. Reply to this

Your position has merit - but I can also see how the reproduction of images and ideas (even as re-production) has social significance. Might I suggest that as (or if, so you please) people experience the world within varying degrees of expectation, the snapping of a photograph becomes a performance of identity. Getting 'that shot' becomes a legitimizing act for the actor as tourist, similar to the way other embodied behaviors legitimize status and inclusion elsewhere. That is is viewed to be 'pre-programmed' or done 'unconsciously' on the part of the individual is because it has become habituated.

Or maybe not. I haven't read the literature on it (and now I want to - maybe it'll make its way onto the pile...if I'm lucky) but am always in the mood for academic babbling (at least on my part). However I'll be schlepping through a smorgasbord of other anthropological and sociological literature on tourism, social memory and embodiment over the next few weeks so I'd like return to this afterward.

Categorically, though, I still feel there is a general distinction drawn between snapshots and photography, whether it is linguistically represented as take vs make, art vs product, or some other such way, which is evident in a few of the comments above. But that now becomes an entirely separate discussion.

- Stephanie Reply to this

I am pre-researching my research, which is to say then, than I am researching a bit of everything in broad sweeping categories at the moment.

Currently I'm doing my master's in food studies/food culture, trying to figure out a specific angle for doctoral research within the general categories of place-making and the role of culinary tourism in reifying cuisine as a hallmark of national identity. Opens implications of consuming the ethnic other and internalizing culture through food....I'm sure there's a great question in there somewhere, but I haven't been thinking about it long enough to have found it quite yet, which is why my readings/thoughts are a bit scattered.

Your research sounds great. The anthropology of tourism is such a small field, like food, but growing. Smith's Hosts & Guests is also on my list, and I'd say it might be dated by now but... I'm not sure of anything that has replaced it.

Would getting 'that shot' legitimize the actor as a 'tourist' or as someone who sees themselves as an 'accomplished photographer’?

Achieving the perfect shot may later lessen the stigma of tourism in lieu of artistic brilliance, but implicit in that distinction is that the two (tourist and photography) are somehow interrelated. Similar attempts are made with excessive display of photographic equipment, prolonged and serious thought while figuring out the light or angle or some such - to distance oneself from a supposedly base activity, other more honorable purposes are postured. An astute observer might notice a difference in the ease and fluidity of which one handles the equipment, while the casual observer will probably not. "I am not taking photos because I'm a tourist. Oh no, I'm taking a picture of the exact same sunset as this guy over here but I'm a photographer/artist/professional. And you can tell my photo is subjectively better and my equipment is visible fancier." Distinguishing oneself with a camera from a tourist implies that a distinction is necessary. For those who are self-conscious of being tourists, being a 'photographer' is perhaps a nice veil.

This is, of course, me speaking from a context where tourism and travel are heavily laden with particular class and status associations. I highly doubt the same meanings of photography can be applied to, say, Japanese tourists as their use of the camera is completely different than that of the Americans, for instance. Or even the way a self-proclaimed back-packer might distinguish him/herself from the camper-van family. So knowing who is behind the camera and who is viewing the photos is key.
Reply to this

I'm a bit late to this conversation, but will still make a small contribution.

I agree with Ali's definition in message 4, and I prefer to follow the making of photographs, though I believe that this process would most likely involve something being shifted - whether that be a perspective or person - in order to get the desired result. There is, I believe, a limit to what steps can be taking to make a photograph so that it doesn't become too contrived. The news cameras can often be accussed of this - for example, protestors putting on a more verbal or physical demonstration just because they know the world is watching. Would this occur demonstration occurs anyway, or does a camera heighten the reactions? People with cameras also need to be wary of this factor.

The reason for me favouring the making approach are twofold. The first is to share my experiences with the family and friends back home. Since I almost always travel on my own, this is an important consideration. However, the main reason is because I love to create. The US psychologist, Abraham Maslow, stated that the most essential ingredient to achieve self-actualisation was that of creativity - and it is something I have pursued my whole life in various forms. Trying to form that ever elusive perfect photo or blog is an immense joy to me. When at home I rarely photograph or write blogs, as there are many other creative pursuits instead, but on the open road, it is the only outlet. When people question me as to what three possessions are most important, I always choose in order: Health, Freedom, Creativity.

Not only is the question to ponder whether you take or make photographs, but are there factors that dissuade you from taking or making any photos? For me, this normally occurs when a local person is sharing information about their lives, beliefs, hopes and dreams. Though one may be located a quiet corner of a restaurant or on a bus, both of which are public locations, such conversations can be personal and intimate. Despite my desire to make a photo to permanently record this event, to suddenly produce a large camera - an item that many people see an intrusive - would detract from that moment. Thus, there are many sights I see on my travels that I would never record or never write about. Reply to this

Sorry about the delay in responding, but the mental demands of work lately has interfered with my attempts to provide a considered response.

It is difficult to avoid a contrived photo, for as soon as you, as an outsider, enters an area, the whole dynamic changes. It is the same belief that the fluttering of a butterflies wings can cause a hurricane on the other side of the world - but on a smaller scale. As soon as you enter such a space - someone will see you and walk away, someone will pause their movement, someone will walk towards you - you have irrevocably changed that moment. And how a photographer captures that now changed scene will reveal in some form their impressions of the scene. For example, two photographers at the same place may construct two very different type of photos - based partly on skill and also on their opinion of what they see and feel.

The fly on the wall scenario is a true one - it is hard enough being an outsider in a country and trying to garner an accurate impression; people will curb comments to you for a variety of reasons, but the longer you stay in an area or with a person, generally the more candour emerges. I am intrigued when I see documentaries and travel shows that feign the impression of being able to see the "real side" of a people and its country. As soon as you put a camera near most individuals, their persona and candour will change. The experiences I have when travelling are only possible because I do not have a cameraman and sound recordist a few metres away.

What is a good photo for me is largely determined by my opinion of it - I believe that there are a few photos I've taken that would be difficult for me to improve, so am very happy with those. Blogs are slightly different - generally the blogs which are written better tend to get the most hits - so that is an affirmation in itself. For me though, comments are the most valued, insofar as someone has taken the time to provide their thoughts. This was one of the reasons I was so satisfied with my North Korean blogs, it generated a lot of comment and many private messages. My aim was to present a non-emotive and non-judgmental observation of the country for people to consider, and it seems to have succeeded.

Finally, onto the Hierarchy of Needs, the difference between sick and free and and healthy and enslaved would depend of the amount of illness. Overall, I would choose sick and free - unless I was so sick that my freedom was seriously compromised. The concept of freedom is a fundamental belief of me. It also explains why I do not have a mortgage, car, or spend my money on the latest fashion or gadgets - thus allowing me the freedom to escape more often. This approach is best surmised in the novel by Joe Orton and Ken Halliwell called "The Boy Hairdresser" which contains the following passage:

"Do you know what subreption is?" said Donelly.
"No."
"To obtain something by misrepresentation. This is what our civilization does - it hold carrots in the air to
make donkeys work. Do you know what it wants in exchange for a house, a car, a larger house, two cars, a television
in every room?"
"No."
"It wants our lives." Reply to this