So far, I’ve talked about capturing an image (or the “taking” of a photo, so to speak). In most cases, it seems that the taking of a photograph depends on many factors that we have little or no control over, including the subject matter, the lighting, the timing etc. This is seen as a more spontaneous or journalistic form of photography, and is common in the sort of opportunities that present themselves when we are on holiday or at a function or event, or just with family or friends. For some, this is “true” photography, where the “camera never lies” and is seen as a true representation of what occurred at the instant the shutter was released.

As I discussed in my last post, we have control of “the decisive moment”, where the we try to capture the essence of the moment by waiting for the ideal instant when all the elements of the image are in place, before we press the shutter button. Is this then a “true” record of that instant? Many have argued that it isn’t, as we do have some influence as to timing, framing and choice of viewpoint and focal length before we release the shutter. So, in a sense, we have manipulated the “moment” by our selection of many factors and making choices that convey “our” interpretation of the moment. Is there a real difference then between “recording” a moment or “capturing” the same moment? Either way, we have edited the moment and it is no longer a “true” record of the moment. The question begs though,  does it matter? And like all open questions, the answer is it depends on the purpose of the image in the first place.

Besides the “taking” of photographs, there is of course another side to photography that is more controlled and that allows us to “create” the image that we want.

This creative photography may take place prior to the “taking” of the photograph or after the image is taken. By planning the desired image that we want (and of course, taking into account the purpose of the image) and then arranging the elements to ensure that we get what we are aiming for, we can create a photographic image to specifications. Most commercial and advertising images are created to suit a specific need. This includes product, fashion and architectural photography, etc. The photographer has full control of the scene and controls all elements including the subject matter at hand, the lighting (usually), as well as his/her interpretation of the final image.

This sort of planned image can be just as difficult to create as the more spontaneous “journalistic” images that we “record” (ask any commercial photographer). We will touch on some aspects of the created image further along the track.

You can also create an image “after” the event, (both spontaneous or planned images) by what is called post-processing. Since the early days of photography, photographers have had the opportunity to manipulate the image before them, either in camera or in the darkroom. Today, our “darkroom” is image processing software such as Photoshop and the like. There is almost no limit as to what can be created in terms of “photographic images”.

Purists may argue that this image processing (or manipulation) is no longer “photography”, but it can be said that the digital process used today is no different as it was “back in the old days”, except that the tools have changed (and require a lesser degree of skill to achieve good results).

Early photographers had the ability to create multi-exposure images, employ darkroom cropping and exposure manipulation as well as other more subtle techniques like airbrushing (the former Soviet Union used this technique routinely to remove undesirables who just “disappeared” – also see this article) to “enhance” an image. We will also look into image enhancement further down the track.

So, is there anything wrong with not just “taking” a photo, but “creating” an image? I would say that it depends on your purpose for wanting an image in the first place (I seem to go back to this point, don’t I?)

I would love to hear your feedback on this thought.