# Photography- Capture or Create?



## vjlex (Mar 14, 2015)

I had an interesting discussion with a friend who is also into photography. In the course of conversation, I realized that he and I see photography quite differently. We both consider ourselves the creative type and that we were artists before we were photographers. But as we've grown in our photography, our sense of aesthetics has too.

I'm curious how other photographers define their own photography- do you see yourself as someone who captures something beautiful that's already there or as someone who envisions something beautiful and tries to bring it to life to capture it? To an extent, I think all of us can say "both", but I also think perhaps we all ultimately have a leaning. And I think that leaning to an extent influences what kind of photographer we see ourselves as and what we like and dislike in others' photography. What do you think? Please vote and share your opinion!


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 14, 2015)

shunsai said:


> ... all of us can say "both", but I also think perhaps we all ultimately have a leaning ...


Pretty difficult question. 
I'm somewhere in the middle.

I suppose I am trying to capture something that is already there but not erveryone can see it and maybe only I can see it in the way I want it to. I try to modify nothing or at least just a minimum. I try to get, what's there in a style that I like and that makes it more interesting for me and others.

To me photography is to capture the light, to do the right framing and if you're skilled enough do extraordinary with your technique and equipment. 

Others do things even more artistic, maybe even abstract. Sometimes I like that sometimes not. But I respect this to be photography, too.


----------



## drjlo (Mar 14, 2015)

Depends on the subject, doesn't it? Studio portrait, more create. Landscape, capture. Wedding reception/candid/street, more capture but try to create best to your abilities and ancillary lighting, etc. Everything really lives or dies in post 8)


----------



## Valvebounce (Mar 14, 2015)

Hi shunsai. 
That is an interesting question, based on what I shoot most I think there is only one answer, capture what is there, though I do try to find an interesting angle where possible. It doesn't help that I don't appear to have a single artistic cell in my body! 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 14, 2015)

I'm bad with "art". Like to capture life as is...


----------



## distant.star (Mar 14, 2015)

.
The only answer I have to this is my three-step photography process...

1. SEE the picture -- most important.
2. Get it in the box.
3. Get it out of the box.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 14, 2015)

Create connotes a approach to creating a photo, perhaps by setting up a shot in a controlled environment to look like it was in Nature as opposed to just using a camera to capture a photo in the wild.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23756.0;topicseen

Capture is just the term for a camera taking a photo, the process of setting exposure, shutter speed, focus, and saving the image. 

Capture always happens, and a photo can have a creative element as well. I think that there is a bit of creative work in most photos. Those that cross the line are thrown out of photography contests.


----------



## tolusina (Mar 14, 2015)

Capture life, nature, reality.
Create in the studio.


----------



## monkey44 (Mar 15, 2015)

MY take :: Capture a creative moment in time ...


----------



## Zeidora (Mar 24, 2015)

80% capture.

I do documentary nature/natural history. So it is mostly true to the subject photography. With that said, there is a creative element in it. Using WA with foreground subject and background environment and framing it in a pleasing way, enhances the visual experience and the communication purpose. 

Occasionally I struggle when I for instance remove leaves from around a mushroom to show it more clearly. There is an element of alteration, but the overall purpose of clearly showing how it is, is preserved. I do not have a problem using a reflector to brighten the underside of that mushroom. But I would never remove one mushroom and place it life-like next to another one. That would be falsification. And I never digitally remove any specimen "imperfections".

I used to shoot in zoos and aquariums quite a bit, but that also is too much like cheating.


----------



## geekpower (Mar 24, 2015)

I think this is a question that is often confused with the questions of whether to stage shots or not, or whether to post process or not.

Although there are many examples of documentary photography that use minimal staging and post processing, and creative photography that uses both freely, these things are not actually bound together, and plenty of counter examples also exist.

Surely macro work is considered a "capture" yet it might require elaborate lighting, focus stacking, and reassembly in photoshop, and much of the drama and emotion of a more artistic shot is created by the framing, composition and timing, not by any artificial manipulation.

In the end it is, as a previous poster wrote, about visualizing the shot, and then doing whatever it takes to share that vision with viewers. Whether that inspiration happens in the moment, as we view a scene and decide it is worth taking a picture of, or we have an idea for a picture, and go out looking for a way to shoot it, the only difference is timing. The essence is the same. If we were not inspired, we would not press the shutter.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 24, 2015)

Excellent question, really like this survey.

My own, purely amateur - photography is 99% "capture what i see, and how i see it". Not by choice, but rather because i am short on both "creative vision" and even more on knowledge, skills, patience and determination required to turn some of my "grand, but rather vague creative ideas into real images". 

Lack of know-how as movie director is also the main reason, why i very consciously don't even try to create moving images/videos.

But ... I am trying to improve my (stills) photography and strive to create more "conceptual images" - even when these are still mostly unarranged, unstaged captures of "real life scenes".


----------



## chauncey (Mar 24, 2015)

I would submit that the only thing that matters is, whatever appears on that canvas/print and is 
hanging in your living room and pleases you. Method of creation is irrelevant.


----------



## pwp (Mar 24, 2015)

I find it difficult to explain precisely why, but I've never felt comfortable with the relatively recent adoption of the term Capture in the photography context. 

To me it infers an unwelcome smash/grab. 

Paparazzi are the Capture guys. I prefer to work with agreement.

-pw


----------



## Zv (Mar 24, 2015)

Both. I like to capture a scene as I saw it to try and recreate the experience for the intended viewer but I also like to create portrait or group shots using off camera flash. 

Lately I've been leaning towards trying to create as much as possible. Even in a landscape scene there are decisions to be made based on what you pre-envisioned it to resemble. For example what time of day, what angle, what focal length and amount of motion blur etc. By making these conscious decisions you are essentially creating an image and no longer just "capturing" IMO.


----------



## Besisika (Mar 24, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Excellent question, really like this survey.
> 
> My own, purely amateur - photography is 99% "capture what i see, and how i see it". Not by choice, but rather because i am short on both "creative vision" and even more on knowledge, skills, patience and determination required to turn some of my "grand, but rather vague creative ideas into real images".
> 
> ...



I think your answer is one of the most sincere I have ever read on CR and I do appreciate that.
I do not pretend to poses great creativity either but my mind is set into that direction, like you do. 
Currently, I am satisfied with my lighting, still working on my background and will focus on posing in near future.

It is difficult to answer to the OP's question because we shoot different subjects for different purposes.
Like the other topic about ethics the answer depends entirely on what we do.
Shooting what you see would be the right thing to do in one domain (it seems) and it is almost a sin in the other.

Assume, you spot a beautiful girl in a park. Beautiful subject you say makes beautiful photo. You gained courage and you asked for a permission. You shoot as she is and you post it on Flickr.
Really?
She has no idea if the light is flattering, if her hand is where it is supposed to be, if the background is fabulous.
We are the expert and we don't do anything about it. Besides, she just had some temporary blemishes on her face today and we don't even want to take the time to retouch it in Photoshop.
Is that ethical?

Agreed, many are still learning, including myself. 
But hiding behind I document things as they are, at least in my mind, is not ethical.
She is beautiful. That is the only one reality. 
It is our job to move her to the right light, or add if necessary, to pose her properly, to chose or modify the background, to retouch anything that hide that beauty. Our responsibility towards her is to show her best as we could. We ow that to her, It is the least compensation we could do for her agreement to being photographed.

To some extend, I see a similarity to seeing a dying from hunger kid on a desert of Africa, snap a photo and continue our tourism and not to give water nor food to help a bit. The scene gave you one of the most important photo of your life and you don't really give any in return.

So my answer to the OP question is, I shoot as it is only when I have no choice, but whenever I have the ability to make it better - I am convinced it is my duty to my subject to bring the best out of her/him. They trust me, I do not intend to disappoint that, unless I don't know how and that is not a sin, it is just a lack of know how that will disappear in time. It is a mindset that gives me peace of mind.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 24, 2015)

It depends. I'm more on the Create side than capturing whats already there.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 24, 2015)

I'm firmly in the "record keeper" camp. Normally I just want to record and share pieces of the world around me, and I'm certainly not going to pretent to be an authority on what everyone else likes to see.
If there's any manipulation of the scene it's probably to get around the limitations of the camera (using artificial light to get your exposure time down when taking macro pictures ar f22 indoors).


----------



## NancyP (Mar 24, 2015)

I have several types of photographs - 1. pure records, not necessarily beautiful (So what is this bird / insect / fungus anyway? Seen at date x at locale y) 2. "capture in a creative way" same nature subjects, but better light, better individual subject (eg, a "perfect" butterfly vs one that has lost a chunk out of its wing), better composition 3. "it's the light" photos - physical subject may or may not be interesting, but the light and patterns are the "subject", and there should be (at least to me) an attempt to evoke a mood.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Mar 24, 2015)

Simple: Capture, then create.


----------



## meywd (Jun 30, 2015)

I saw this tutorial today and started to wonder, do I need to do this to have a good enough image, I know that is not true, but in this age do we know how many of the photos we see are not edited in the same way? 

I like the idea of effects and composing an image out of multiple to make a special image, but I don't see that as photography, because even if all the elements are taken from actual photos, it would still be closer to drawing than photographing.

I can understand when doing studio shoots that they need to edit the image like in fashion - though I don't agree with it but that's a whole different topic - however when shooting a picture that's supposed to be natural then I don't get it, now you can say if he/she specified that its composed then no problem, but such in image will always give the impression that its a single shot, because first its not a studio shot, and second its contains action - so people think its harder to edit.


----------

