Tell me about the difference between picturetaking and photography!
I’ll be happy to.
I had to find a way of describing the transitions you have to go through when wanting to take photography seriously. The best phrase I found was that this was a transition from simply being a picturetaker to that of being a photographer. Picturetakers take pictures, obviously. Photographers literary takes picture too, but they do it with a clear purpose, high dedication and by knowing and using the alphabet and grammar of visual communication. Metaphorically speaking. The alphabet consists of the single units used to tell a story. The grammar is the way you put units together.
Being a photographer takes experience and knowledge. Being a picturetaker does not. That is the different. It is huge.
It is all too easy creating some sort of result when you use a camera. Everyone can buy one and start shooting. They don’t even have to leave the shop to start their new career. Knowing how to press the button, however, make them no photographers. Buying canvas and brushes and starting using them do not make people painters. You need to know how to use these tools before you will become a painter. You have to study and you have to practice. You need to know something about colours, brushes and canvas before you can start painting as an artist. You need to know something about perspective and composition as well. That learning takes years.
Anyone can cover a canvas with paint using a brush as anyone can cover a film/card with light using a camera. That has, however, nothing to do with painting or photography. Having the gear is only the first beginning.
Photography means “drawing with light”. I simply asked myself what do the pencils look like when you want to draw with light. I started coming up with answers and I tried deliberately and consistently to use the pencils I carried in my bag. And I looked for new ones. Most importantly I got myself a mentor. Now I have many. All these things were part of the new beginning.
Having a mentor does not mean that you copy stuff. It means that you use established experiences and results but walk down your own path. When you look at my photographs I hope that you will see that there is no copying but a lot of inspiration.
One of the most important things in messaging is the form and structure of that message. If you have that right, a message is conveyed. Do it wrong and no message will not be conveyed. I try to do very simple photographs. The lucky ones are also precise. I do simple things with the camera. That is the only way I know. I have that from advertising, actually. Other may have this very differently.
I found that is was much harder to do a simple picture than a complicated one. The last type you very easily get by just shooting away. Left and right. Up and down. That world belongs to the picturetaker. Could be so complicated that it ends in confusion. A message mess.
To do a simple shot you have to evaluate all the time. Get rid of all the access information. Make sure that things fit together. That can be quite a task. That world belongs to the photographer.
Mind you a simple picture can be complex, but never complicated. That difference is important.
I have also found that you are not 100 percent photographer, or 100 percent picturetaker. These attitude often mix, but the ambition must be to be a photographer most of the time, and picturetaker less of the time. The good thing is that the new information you acquire, for instance, by having a mentor gradually link into your spine and becomes second nature to you. Even when you are only picturetaking the results could end up as photography. That is the reward of learning. You get the investment back tenfold.
Some will say that this sounds like a strain, difficult and even academic. And photography is supposed to be fun. Maybe so. But think about in another way. It takes about 5 years become a lawyer, even longer to become a medical doctor. Takes a lifetime to a become painter, a songwriter or a good harmonica player. Why is it that as soon as some people get a camera in their hand they become instant photographers? You tell me.
The point is that they don’t. It is impossible.
The good thing is that photography is a craft and like any other craft it can be learned. You cannot teach anyone to be come a Picasso, a da Vinci or a Bob Dylan. Or for that matter a Cartier-Bresson, but you can teach how to hold the pencil, how to wait and to point it the right direction when the decisive moment is there.
That said, I also realize that some do photography mainly by instinct. You can see it in their individual works, and even better in their portfolios. Such people are very rare. They are the onepercenters. Or even lessthanonepercenters. Call them talents. Even these talents have to cultivate their capacities, and that is just what the process from picturetaking to photography is all about.
I am afraid that for the rest of us it is even harder work. My 2P.
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.