Do You want your camera to “Create”, or “Record” an image?

Ambro51

Collector/Photographer
Local time
7:10 AM
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
689
This is a Very Deep concept. It touches on reality vs. pictorialism, Art vs. Journalism, Self expression vs. presenting a scene to a viewer. The Camera is the Tool.
 
It's always both; no way around it.

Not sure presenting your idea as 'either or' is the best way to explore it. YMMV.
 
I've done both. I think the RF is better for recording, and at times the SLR lends itself very well to creating.
 
I started recording and then over time I turned toward creating to the point that I make digital collages.
However it is still a mix of the two, although recently have introduced more composite work.
Looking for example at photos of HBC I always had the feeling that it is as if he forges the external word to produce the images he wants
As I am not as good as him I resort to tricks in photoshop to achieve more creative freedom and work more like a painter, except that I use many photos instead of brushes to compose an image
 
Always recording for me but the mere fact that you`re using a camera to do this introduces an element of creativity unfortunately .
 
I'm not sure calling the question "Very Deep" at the outset constrains anyone to be so deep with their responses! Like others, I'm tempted to reply "Um, both."

Any but the most neutral film, or digital files which have minimal post-processing (or in-camera processing), is going to have an element of "making" to it, as in, the medium's interpretation will not be quite true-to-life, but rather take on the characteristics of the medium. Horatio above boils it down to candid vs. staged, I'm not sure I agree with it being so simple.

Again, it really does come back to "um, both" for me. It's never all one or the other. If we're talking candid vs. staged, it's always candid for me. I don't stage photos, except for the odd portrait of family or the like. Which I only marginally enjoy making - I still prefer candids. It's usually someone else asking me to do the staged ones.
 
Only recording. It is important for me to stay the creator of the picture.

I'm of the same mind here. The camera is merely a tool - a light tight box that exposes its medium, whether digital or analog, for a designated time. The individual chooses the camera, the lens, the settings, and what to direct that tool at. We create, the tool records, and the reader interprets.
 
I don't see it to be a problem to use camera for both.
For taking picture which will show something simple. Like big plane flying low.



Or something artsy.

 
Ko.Fe. said:
I don't see it to be a problem to use camera for both.


Nice examples :)
But if the second one became artsy because the camera moved itself it seems a bit spooky in my eyes ;)
 
This is a Very Deep concept. It touches on reality vs. pictorialism, Art vs. Journalism, Self expression vs. presenting a scene to a viewer. The Camera is the Tool.

The camera by itself is nothing but an inert tool that can do nothing of its own volition. It takes an operator with volition to create a photograph.

A camera is a recording device. It records light in a manner that is a 2 dimensional spatial representation, with either grayscale or polychromatic data, as formed by a lens onto a recording medium. It creates only in the sense of forming that recording based upon the physics of its design and the settings imposed by the person operating it.

The person operating the camera and then rendering the image as formed by it does the creating (or 'making' depending on which word you prefer).

G
 
Back
Top Bottom