I have struggled through my entire photographic life with this, knowingly or (mostly) unknowingly.
https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/06/11/take-or-make-by-david-lykes-keenan/
The divide between photographic maker or taker is not always simply one of process, nor client desire, it is sometimes one of life philosophy. A photo maker and photo taker may be as different as a plumber is to an electrician or possibly more accurately an architect to a builder.
I know plenty of shooters who need to exert control, even if their desire is the capture reality. I saw a lot of it at the paper, people doing the same thing the same way for many years, decades even, means they have a self expectation, a deliberately limited process, something I pushed hard against adopting.
I struggle to “make” a photo. I am trying to reason why, so maybe I can do something about it, but the reality is, watching, not telling is too deeply ingrained in me and not just in my use of this medium.
I have always disliked fakery.
Ironically, the taker is more generous, not wanting to assert their opinion on the subject, just their interpretation of them.
The maker takes control.
In photography, the reality is, some of the process is always manufactured, whether it be a choice of film, developer, camera brand in digital, shooting mode, or processing, something is always made up, controlled, but it is where and when the choices are made that makes the difference.
Pre-visualising a loose concept, a desire for the shape and capture of a hunt is very different to making a fully formed concept from scratch.
Walking out the door to take street images with a selected camera and lenses, a choice between zooms or primes, RAW or jpeg, film of digital, night or day, colour or mono, all must be made or you cannot function and they will effect the end result, but they are selected tools, not selected props in a stage play of your making. The subject, sought after with the above gear, still has to decide for itself, what you will get to compose you image.
The road is a mystery, it rambles, the terrain shifts, the subjects have no controllable time table.
This may not be acceptable for a client or creative director, working to a time frame and the expectations of another. If they allow the process to bloom, it may transcend their expectations, but it is risky, inefficient.
The commercial photographer must make an image. Tools are as important, even more so possibly, because compromise cannot be put down to the whims of the world, but lead back to the maker only.
Concept to realisation is a straight and unforgiving road, a highway made for speed to the destination.
Art is the grey area. Making is part of the process more or less, but making to a non-conformist concept is the difference. Even the established “old school” landscape shooters (and street shooters) are working within strict parameters, even if they do not know or realise it.
I still struggle to manufacture images, which is a problem in my new role, just not as common as before. The paper demanded a manufactured image, but would accept a naturalistic version if it fit the rather limited criteria. If you were cover sport, a street parade, a concert or even conflict, then “what you see is what it is” can work, should really, but for most front page fodder, making the “shape” is all important.
Dated, small minded, artistically loathsome come to mind, but it is what it is.
Pushing back against that is tough and ill-advised. I know that sometimes you win, but you always need the fall-back of “that” image, the one that often even the subject resists.
My track record of landscape shooting has generally been poor, something I put down to patience, but the reality to me is, it feels manufactured.
Sport, something that works within limited constraints feels relatively free, which is an illusion I know, but the feeling is one of capture, not placement, asserting limited control, not exerting full control and the creative responsibilities that come with that.
This is primal drama manufactured by sport. Not natural, but emotive none the less, because it is a real response to an artificial environment.
Even stage drama, make to measure, is still a hunt to the shooter, just a hunt within a cage. It is the people, the, dare I say it, human drama that makes it real even if it is no more than superficial. Composing low with backlighting adds drama for example, so it is taking some control, but there is no two way communication.
This performer is offering drama, the photographer capturing that intent using everything at hand.