Getting your head around the difference between history and historiography is difficult.
I think the best way to think about it is this: Whilst not being vague, historiographers take the broadest approach possible to their topics.
So imagine a historical event happens - someone dies on the street. Immediately, police come and do work. Media. Coroner does his autopsy. More media. Legal investigations. Media. Books written. More media. More books, more media, more speculation. Maybe a new investigation's done. More books.
Throughout this process, historians are coming and going; police, media, coroner, lawyers, book writers, investigators, are all historians.
To be a historiographer, you sit up in the clouds trying to watch it all. You're a historian like everybody else (why/how did this happen?), but you're also watching every historian and making notes as to how they form their views and why. You're also wondering why people care about this person who was shot, what kind of impact time has on the views, what methodologies are in place, what constitutes 'history' of the event, etc etc.
I like to think of history (since the big bang) as a massive machine - different sized wheels, belts, cogs, etc all interacting with each other, always changing. Historians are interested in looking at a few wheels, or even just a part of a wheel. A historiographer is wondering why the hell history's a machine in the first place
p), why it's running, if a cog is relevant, etc.
I know it's very vague, but the best thing to do is to take a step back. If all else fails, place all your historians chronologically, and see what kind of interaction they have with everybody and everything around them. Hell, one view of history may be that historians
shouldn't have a relationship with anything but primary evidence.
