Snapshot or Art Photographer?

[Mark Blauhoefer]

Definite;y Art.

I don't know why so many camera obsessives refuse to do a short course in photography - the benefits from just a brief amount of feedback and helpful suggestions are worth much more than the price they've paid for the machine. Perhaps because they're using the best camera and therefore it must take the best pictures? I know folks who can shoot art straight from the camera, they can take it anywhere and anywhen - in places and at times I'll struggle to find anything worth taking a photo of - and it'll be guaranteed magic

--
Painting with light

 

[MoreorLess]

I went to an opening yesterday of a fellow photographer which was an exhibit of her black and white photos taken some years ago. During her excellent talk she revealed that it wasn't until a photo journalist friend commented, upon viewing her photos, 'so you're a snapshot photographer' that she changed her style. The thought of falling into that category of photography was appalling. Her work reflected the change in that here was a show of form and shadow featuring the naked human body in nature.

Upon returning home and viewing my own photos I must admit the majority most likely fall into the the category of snapshots. The question I'd like to discuss is whether, like my friend, would you be appalled to have your work described as snapshots? Considering the thousands of dollars and hours dedicated is the only acceptable goal to produce 'Art Photography'? I have many more questions but will leave it at those two to start.

Honestly whilst I sell landscape, macro, etc that's hopefully artfully composed I would say that I do value some spontaneity. I do a lot of work at a handful of local popular viewpoints people want images of and turning up in interesting conditions without always being 100% clear what I'm going to take yields more variety I find.

On the other side I do tend to find when I attempt street photography it comes across as more obviously composed even if its off the cuff...

 

[griddi]

Definite;y Art.

I don't know why so many camera obsessives refuse to do a short course in photography - the benefits from just a brief amount of feedback and helpful suggestions are worth much more than the price they've paid for the machine. Perhaps because they're using the best camera and therefore it must take the best pictures? I know folks who can shoot art straight from the camera, they can take it anywhere and anywhen - in places and at times I'll struggle to find anything worth taking a photo of - and it'll be guaranteed magic

--
Painting with light

Very well said, but also, keep in mind, just with anything else, like perhaps painting etc. one will always find people who have a special talent for what they are doing.......

Griddi......

 

[bluehighwayman]

Well I was completely surprised at the number of responses! I've been out doing some photography today thinking about this topic. Next week I'm entering some photos that will hopefully end up in a juried show. The person picked to be the judge is a photographer and also runs a well respected photo gallery. After viewing some of her work I am in doubt that my 'snapshots' will get in to the show but I'm going to give it my best shot (pun intended)! Why do I like doing this well it gives me a goal and is also about facing the fear of rejection but it is infinitely better to be rejected than to give in to the fear. I'll let everyone know how it turns out and post the photos that are either accepted or rejected. Does anyone else enter local juried shows?

Thanks for all the great comments and discussion!

 

[tony field]

It all depends upon what a snapshot or art is to the viewer. People with different skills have different points of view.

A very versatile professional art and Commercial photographer commented that I have a number of nice snapshots and a few fine photographs. This does not bother me since I know my limitations of vision and photography. Most of my photography involving people places and sports result in souvenirs of what i shot and what I saw. I am quite happy with the few images that I really like and have them published.

To go beyond snapshots, you really have to have a strong point of view... Which I lack, except by accident.

--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

 

[hfjacinto]

People get too worked up over “descriptives”, be what you are and enjoy it. I’m a snap shooter and proud of it. I don’t really care whether you like my work or not. My self worth is not based on your meaningless opinion.

 

[MyReality]

I think that some photographers(Cartier-Bresson) would say that SOME snapshots can be meaningful, while others(Helmut Newton, Herb Ritz would say "made" is the BEST way to go.

 

[jrtrent]

Well I was completely surprised at the number of responses! I've been out doing some photography today thinking about this topic. Next week I'm entering some photos that will hopefully end up in a juried show. The person picked to be the judge is a photographer and also runs a well respected photo gallery. After viewing some of her work I am in doubt that my 'snapshots' will get in to the show but I'm going to give it my best shot (pun intended)! Why do I like doing this well it gives me a goal and is also about facing the fear of rejection but it is infinitely better to be rejected than to give in to the fear. I'll let everyone know how it turns out and post the photos that are either accepted or rejected. Does anyone else enter local juried shows?

I've considered myself a photography hobbyist ever since I was a child, and I've enjoyed many different types and brands of camera over the decades (cameras and accessories make great toys to play with!), but I've never had the slightest interest in entering a show of any kind, or even of showing my pictures to anyone other than family or a close friend who might be interested in the subject matter. Your second sentence above really indicates to me that you have very different goals for the hobby than I do because, except for the purpose of testing or simply getting familiar with a new piece of equipment, I never go out to "do some photography." The events or trips that I take a camera along to are things I would go to even if photography never existed--the pictures I take are simply visual reminders for me of a pleasant or interesting occasion, not "art" in any sense that I would use that word.

So no, I do not enter local juried shows. I do have one friend who enters juried shows and various forms of local photography contests. She does rather well and uses a variety of styles from creating abstract forms in post-processing to straight record shots on themes given by the contest organization. She always has fun, and I hope you do, too. Best wishes for the upcoming show you are submitting your work to.

 

[Mackiesback]

The term “snapshooter” is often used in a derogatory manner by often self proclaimed artists, indicating that you are no better then a program mode point and clicker. I don’t find that very accurate, and more of an attempt by insecure artists to elevate themselves from the pack. I have seen some “fine art” photography that was merely a mundane subject, with the camera tilted, the iso grainy, underexposed and slightly out of focus and presto, fine art!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with documenting things and places along your life journey as you see them, and want to see them again at a later date. Some of the most interesting images to me are busy street scenes of nothing in particular from decades ago, or a bustling pit lane in an old Formula race rather than some blurry vase that someone had to tell me was art.

 

[sportyaccordy]

I just try to take good photos.

 

[Lightpath48]

Our family and friends seem to highly value my snapshots of them, caught during peak moments of connection and enjoyment. I’m not appalled at all about any of them. Would you like to know how many of my artsy, finely fashioned photos got attention this week from people whose relationships I value? Not many.

 

[David Pavlich]

We all have differing views of snapshots and images.

Snapshot: Group of people get together, shooter says stand here, say "cheese" and shoots.

Image: Shooter looks over the scene. Notes that the Sun will be low on the horizon in 15 minutes. Checks for proper light. Looks for a nice background. Knowing that the light will be terrific in 15 minutes and finds a good background, gets the group together to set up the shot. After they are lined up in something that looks orderly, the shooter takes a test shot and checks the results. Shooter then makes adjustments and shoots the real thing.

Certainly, this is only one example. Snapshots can be great shots. We don't always have control over the environment, so we have to shoot quickly. Even so, if someone is serious about photography, they will have a pretty good idea of what will make the shot as good as can be expected considering the situation.

David

 

[Lightpath48]

We all have differing views of snapshots and images.

Snapshot: Group of people get together, shooter says stand here, say "cheese" and shoots.

For me, a good snapshot can also be more than that. I was influenced by a few photojournalists who helped me elevate my candid shooting to more effective story telling. Those may still be snapshots by someone's definition, but they are more than just posed, "say cheese" photos. People are conversing, reacting, moving about in activities, in interesting or beautiful places, and I'm attempting to capture these things meaningfully. Sometimes a photo taken this way is really good, and gets lifted beyond mere snapshot. It ends up on a wall, or on someone's FB timeline as a main photo. I'm rewarded in that. I do get lucky, sometimes.

 

[David Pavlich]

We all have differing views of snapshots and images.

Snapshot: Group of people get together, shooter says stand here, say "cheese" and shoots.

For me, a good snapshot can also be more than that. I was influenced by a few photojournalists who helped me elevate my candid shooting to more effective story telling. Those may still be snapshots by someone's definition, but they are more than just posed, "say cheese" photos. People are conversing, reacting, moving about in activities, in interesting or beautiful places, and I'm attempting to capture these things meaningfully. Sometimes a photo taken this way is really good, and gets lifted beyond mere snapshot. It ends up on a wall, or on someone's FB timeline as a main photo. I'm rewarded in that. I do get lucky, sometimes.

I agree. Those casual shots can be much more rewarding than the setup shot of a group. I did a 60th wedding anniversary and my favorite shot of the whole outing was a test shot of the couple with their grandchildren around them. The shot managed to catch the couple giving one of the rambunctious kids the evil eye while he was making faces at the photographer. Just as an afterthought, I included the shot with the proofs of the real thing. I ended up making three prints of this shot.

David

 

[Aaron801]

I just try to take good photos.

 

[Gato Amarillo]

Actually a "snapshot" style is highly regarded in some fine art circles.

From Wikipedia --

"The term snapshot aesthetic refers to a trend within fine art photography in the USA from around 1963. The style typically features apparently banal everyday subject matter and off-centered framing."

Robert Frank is probably the best know example of "snapshot" style. His book "The Americans" is considered a landmark work of photographic art. For some samples, along with excerpts from the introduction by Jack Kerouac:

Loading…

www.nytimes.com

Or see the all the photos here in just under six minutes:

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

Other well-known names associated with the style include Nan Goldin, Gary Winogrand, and Daidō Moriyama.

For more snapshot artists, see:

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kung Fu]

I went to an opening yesterday of a fellow photographer which was an exhibit of her black and white photos taken some years ago. During her excellent talk she revealed that it wasn't until a photo journalist friend commented, upon viewing her photos, 'so you're a snapshot photographer' that she changed her style.

What an ***hole.

 

[Dennis]

The question I'd like to discuss is whether, like my friend, would you be appalled to have your work described as snapshots?

No. I might be disappointed, depending on which photos I was showing and how much I respected the person making the comment. But I would make any changes. I shoot what I like to shoot. And so my shots are what they are. I'm always open to improving, and I undoubtedly take some shots in a hurry that could be improved with a little more thought and a little more care. But if someone thinks some of my photos are snapshots, then okay - in their eyes, they're snapshots. (Some of my photos are snapshots in my own eyes).

Considering the thousands of dollars and hours dedicated is the only acceptable goal to produce 'Art Photography'?

Some people seem to have that opinion, but it ignores the vast majority of photographs, which are taken by many different types of photographer for many different purposes.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[tcg550]

My "work" is for my enjoyment.

It's not on display for people to critique. I don't really care what anyone else thinks of my photos.

The exception being when someone is paying me, then it's their opinion that matters.

 

[Aaron801]

Actually a "snapshot" style is highly regarded in some fine art circles.

From Wikipedia --

"The term snapshot aesthetic refers to a trend within fine art photography in the USA from around 1963. The style typically features apparently banal everyday subject matter and off-centered framing."

Robert Frank is probably the best know example of "snapshot" style. His book "The Americans" is considered a landmark work of photographic art. For some samples, along with excerpts from the introduction by Jack Kerouac:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/02/magazine/robert-frank-the-americans.html

Or see the all the photos here in just under six minutes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapshot_aesthetic

Other well-known names associated with the style include Nan Goldin, Gary Winogrand, and Daidō Moriyama.

For more snapshot artists, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapshot_aesthetic

I was saying the same kind of thing in my own post, but you've provided some specific examples. There are lots of well known art photographers who employ the "snapshot aesthetic" but the one who always comes to mind for me is William Eggelston...


I see it like this: early photography was more or less an attempt to mimic the aesthetic of painting and you'll see that in the way that the photographs are composed; very formally, not really any different than that of the painting of the day. With the advent of smaller, more maneuverable cameras (roll film) you start to see compositions becoming more unbalanced and to the casual eye even chaotic. Whatever you may think if this development though, it was significant in that it showed that photography can have it's own aesthetic and not simply borrow from painting. Fast forward several decades (the later half of the 20th century) and you start to see things go the other way and that certain painters are borrowing from the look of photography...

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/