Photographer or "Image Maker".....Which are you?

peterm1

peterm1

Veteran
Local time
7:48 AM
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
7,848
View My Gallery
I used to consider myself to be a photographer (well an amateur one anyway.)

But I have experienced an epiphany - a conversion on the road to Damascus or some other suitable biblical analogy signifying a major change of heart.

I now think of myself as being an image maker instead!

The thing that has changed has been me learning to use Photoshop / Paint Shop Pro better (still learning) and beginning to understanding the difference it can make to a photo. Not just a minor difference but trasnformational changes that really realise an image's potential.

I have now reached the conclusion that "image making" is only partly about getting the image - still very important I grant you, but to an extent that I never before thought possible its also about what you do with the image in post processing. Well, this is my approach in any event....maybe not for everyone or every style. There are plenty of people who still think that its about the camera and the image capture and post processing is only for making minor tweaks to sharpness, contrast etc.

I was reinforced in my view yesterday when looking at a fine art photography magazine on the newstand and in it the author said its not unusual for him to take a day or more of intensive work on one photo to post process it into exactly the image he wants. By the way these images are not full of "special effects" of the sort loved by "graphic designers." They are "straightforward" monochrome images of the human form - beautifully lit with wonderful tones and gradations but no other effects. I do not spend that sort of time in post processing but I can spend an hour or more on an image.

And it has changed my approach to photo taking. I no longer do much in the way of "pictoral" type work - landscapes etc. I look for form and shapes and color and tone and shadow and light that I know I may be able to do something with in the digital darkroom. Sometimes this works but sometimes not of course.

So I am an image maker now......well still learning and a long way to go but what about you? I am wondering how other people regard themselves and whether their philosophy or attitude has changed over time as they have learned to use image processors like Photoshop better.
 
By your definition of "image maker", I guess I am.

My definition of "image maker" is that of someone who makes an image (i.e. photo montages, computer-generated imagery, etc)

I would say that the "image maker" you propose is really a "Photographer". A person who only takes a photo and doesn't care about the end-product (i.e. does not care about post-processing) is merely an Enthusiast.
 
I agree with Gabriel. Your definition of an image-maker sounds to me like my definition of a photographer. Of course, photographers do make images.

I think that anybody who claims that a real photographer doesn't do post in PS is missing the point. Ansel Adams could do more in the darkroom than most of us could in PS, but nobody thinks less of him for relying on the darkroom to create his images.

In his books he speaks of having a vision in mind when seeing a scene then manipulating every step along the way from lens to print to achieve that vision. To me, that is a real photographer: somebody who has an image in mind then does whatever is needed to achieve it. This may require hours of work in Photoshop for somebody shooting digital, or it could simply be the choice of the correct filter for somebody shooting slides. The important thing is to have a vision in mind then work towards reproducing it.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the distinction is the same thing as the photographer/printmaker (in a wet darkroom). A good photographer doesn't have to be a good printmaker. The two skills and talents are very different. Some very fine photographers were terrible in the darkroom or cared little for the craft of printmaking.

I think perhaps you are discovering the "other" side.

I've always placed an emphasis on the image, and actually enjoy PS'ing. I really didn't care for the wet darkroom printing though.
/
 
Last edited:
It would have been quite interesting to include a poll with this to see how many photographers actually see themselves as image makers.

I believe you can be an image maker without necessarily doing it in post-processing ... you can assemble a variety of objects in your viewfinder in whatever fashion you want to create your particular vision. Admittedly you still have to press the shutter and actually take the photo but in effect you are pre-processing I guess and I do this a lot! I quite often deliberately underexpose something to get the effect I want.

Really interesting question by the way! 🙂
 
Last edited:
Also, I don't mean to imply that you need to labour in the darkroom or in PS to be a photographer. I seem to recall that Bresson couldn't be bothered to do his own prints. To me, this just means that his vision didn't include about levels of contrast and whatnot. It's perfectly legitimate for a photographer to concern himself with what he sees in the viewfinder.
 
To clarify, what I mean by "image maker" is that I have realised that creating the final image is a product of a "system" involving a camera, a vision for an image and a piece of software to take the raw product (no pun intended) from the camera and to realise the vision. Before, when using film, my emphasis was on the camera and my relationship to it. Full stop. That's about where my thinking ended. Now when I get what I think is going to be a good image I think, "Wow I cant wait to get home to start working on this on my PC." Its an entirely different mindset and the focus is on ralising the image using the PC rather than capturing it. I grant you that many professionals including film greats - like Ansell - no doubt thought this way when shooting film. But as an amateur enthusiast with a film camera there was no way I was going to have a proper darkroom to perfect my image manipulation skills. Now using digital technology I can and I guess what I am expressing is my surprise at how much change this has wrought in my philosophy about image making. My PC is at least as important to me as my camera.
 
I feel the same way about digital imaging. It definitely brings new capabilities to us. I do digital post work on everything I shoot, be it digital or film. Only the very best of what I shoot gets wet printed, and even then I can rarely match what I can achieve in digital post.

I think that when I started shooting digital my eyes were opened in much the same way. Not having to rely upon the 4x6s from the minilab as my end product really made me start caring about trying to reach perfection.
 
I prefer to think of myself as a cow.

Seriously though, I find this kind of definition wrangling to be splitting hairs. It's great that you've become open to the possibilities of digital processing, but I don't see that this calls for any rotation of labels. Ansel Adams was a darkroom wizard in addition to being a dedicated field man that marched 8x10 view cameras into the wilds to get his shots. Cartier-Bresson said he had no interest in the photographic process, and left film development and print entirely up to others. They were both photographers. "Photographer," is not some kind of precision designation.

My interest in post-processing has waxed and waned in cycles, but that's just me changing. Photography is still called photography to me, regardless if I use jpegs fresh out of the camera's processor, or if I spend an evening massaging a RAW file to get it just right.
 
Bassism said:
I agree with Gabriel. Your definition of an image-maker sounds to me like my definition of a photographer. Of course, photographers do make images.

I think that anybody who claims that a real photographer doesn't do post in PS is missing the point. Ansel Adams could do more in the darkroom than most of us could in PS, but nobody thinks less of him for relying on the darkroom to create his images.

In his books he speaks of having a vision in mind when seeing a scene then manipulating every step along the way from lens to print to achieve that vision. To me, that is a real photographer: somebody who has an image in mind then does whatever is needed to achieve it. This may require hours of work in Photoshop for somebody shooting digital, or it could simply be the choice of the correct filter for somebody shooting slides. The important thing is to have a vision in mind then work towards reproducing it.
Click to expand...

Something I have always struggled with is that idea of previsualizing how I want the photo to look. Sometimes I think is is a good idea, other times I think what I see is exactly what I want. Those are the lucky times I guess.

But I think you are correct to point out that Ansel Adams brought that out, that he was a master of the darkroom, and that PS is just an easier way to do what Adams did in the darkroom. After all, what is PS doing but what is attempted in the darkroom?

There is no shame to using PS any more than manipulating an image in a darkroom. The talent is learning to make an image that the photographer is more satisfied with. If lucky, others will agree.

Whether you get exactly what you want without manipulation, or have to manipulate in a darkroom, digital or wet, if you aren't simply snapshooting, you are making images. And sometimes even when snapshooting if you are good enough.
 
Probably neither in my particular case. I tend to think exclusively in the message or emotion created by the final series of prints without regard of what tools you use to get there.

But lately I am thinking more of myself as a social documentarian. I have come to realize that I could easily put down the cameras completely and pick up an audio recorder to accomplish my same goals. Audio rather than visual, but still the same goals.

Now I do ask myself why I spend them on a photographic site. Still grappling internally with that.
 
Interesting, I was just looking at a magazine on my lunch hour, Digital Photo Pro I think. There was an article about a guy that makes "montages" of images. I didn't read it in depth, but I noticed he preferred shooting 4x5 film, then manipulating digitally afterwards. I never really tried a montage.

Now there was this other photographer I saw on a PBS show. It may have been a husband and wife team. They made montages using only traditional methods, from large format negatives. They built sets to make their images, which were very surreal. The gentlemen photographer was also part of all the images. I remember one being him, sort of dressed in old floppy clothes, climbing a ladder and was above the clouds (or something like that). I just can't remember his/their names !

Cheers
 
Purity and tradition?
Preparing daguerreotypes, are we?
Do be mindful of the mercury.

Or can we use a negative process and an enlarger?
Shall we play with development times?
How about contrast during printing?
Dodging and burning?
Spotting?

Boulderdash!
If a camera was used during creation, it's photography.
It was then, it is now.
 
I like the idea of "capturing the moment", the instant when everything just falls into place, from peoples' expressions and gestures to the overall composition, but I also like to make a nice silver print of the image. That's one side of me.

Then there's the need to pay the bills, to keep some editor or art director happy. That's required using a view camera on occasion, knowing how to set up lights, how to talk your way past security (that used to be a lot easier), hair styling basics, a multitude of other skills.

The past couple of years I've also shot a lot of color, and a lot of that is film souped and printed at the mini-lab. It's "quick and dirty" but serves its purpose. Great art? Not to me, but people like it. Imaging or photographing? It's only semantics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom