I think it’s misleading to say that taking photos is equivalent to photographing what is only present. Making photos isn’t just about manipulating the scene or adding to it. Making photos is about seeing a scene and getting the most out of it. Knowing how to work the light, knowing how use your camera to get the effect you want, applying filters, and then of course adding to the scene with props, people, etc. I bet more people who answered “Take Photos” actually “Make Photos” and don’t realize it.

Cameras are tools to capture scenes in various ways whether that is to create shallow depth of field to isolate your subject or to slow your shutter speed and pan to blur your subject. All these setting adjustments are part of “Making” photos. It’s not just about adding people and objects or bringing in strobes.

I hope those that have thought about the concept of “Take” versus “Make” photos think about their answer a little deeper. It’s not always obvious when we as photographers “Make” vs. “Take” a photo.

– C

Myself, since I am still a noob at photography I am in the take category. I don’t think I have the technical knowledge yet to bring all my ideas to a satisfying shot (at least satisfying to me) if I was to attempt a make shot. I see all these wonderful, creative setup shots on sites like DPChallenge and know I am not quite there to compete but its a great inspiration.

I feel the natural progression for a hobby photographer like myself is to take photo’s then as you learn and grow you end up on the make side and doing both Just like Brian says in his original post about being more artistic, this comes in time as you get to know the camera better and more importantly yourself and your shooting style.

These are my beliefs and opinions take as necessary

Cheers! =)

I have to agree with Bryan’s comment. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with doing only one or the other. I just happen to be at a point in my photographic learning curve where I find the creative process associated with making a photo as “the next challenge.” A lot of this internal next-step prodding has occurred because of my interest in Strobist and wanting to have more creative control over my photos. At a certain point with Strobism, you get a decent enough handle on the technical side of things (place a light here, put a modifier there) that you start paying attention to other things in the photo. It’s not just about the light.

For me, being able to take and make a photo just makes me feel more well-rounded. It’s not for everybody. As some folks have stated, they’re perfectly happy doing exactly what they’re doing and that is what makes photography satisfying.

Admittedly, the above is biased as most of my photography is observational. What I hadn’t thought of–and after having read the question I realize I must take into account–are those who create photos. By inventing a scene, a photographer has the potential to create more painterly images (i.e. the photographer can be more free with composition rather than relying on happenstance). I’ve been happy with very few of the still-lifes I’ve set up, but I greatly admire those who can do it well. Some of the spreads that Leibovitz has done for Vanity Fair (Killers Kill, Dead Men Die) and Disney are nothing short of astounding!

That said, I make photos but rarely create them.

So, Randy, and anyone else who “takes” photos, there is no need to feel sad. Just keep challenging yourself!