Picturetakes versus Photographs.
The more I think of it the more sound it gets.
I must admit, that when I first had the idea of the distinction it was mostly for the fun of it. But now, I am pretty sure that the idea is indeed sound.
As I see it: There is a distinction between the concept and the attitude of picturetaking, and that of photography.
Anyone, who is in the position of a camera can get that camera to function and thereby take a picture. Many will remain picturetakers. Some are disposed to become photographer.
If you basically let the camera be in charge, you are a picturetaker. If you take charge yourself, you have the potential of becoming a photographer. Sure, all photography includes taking pictures. But all taking of pictures does not include photography.
More precisely it goes like this: Both picturetaking and photography include taking pictures. If you let the camera direct your way you become a picturetaker. If you yourself take the lead of the camera, then you are in a position to become a photographer. Don’t ridicule this. I am well aware of the fact that even picturetaking involves a basic taking charge of the camera. You need to take it out of your bag, for instance, point it in a direction, etcetera.
The good thing is: People are not wholly picturestaker, nor are they wholly photographer. Some shots are picturetakes, other are photographs. So don’t despair. But don’t rest on the laurels either. You are, most likely, more the one than the other. You check it out.
Is a picturetake the same as a snapshot? No, it is not. A snapshot can be a picturetake, as well as it can be a photograph.
Is a picturetake the same as a picture? No, it is not.
Many more words could be said about this, but I will leave it here. You figure it out.
This post is a working note.