Photographs or snappshots?

Steven Sterne · Apr 30, 2003

Duane Kilby wrote:
...where hopefully YOU will still be

Duane Kilby said:
taking pictures.....

but will these pictures be photographs, or snapshots? heh, heh.

Another very interesting and reasoned post, though your argument does rely heavily on each viewer to determine what is a photograph for himself or herself - for example, I see a lot of beautiful pictures of flowers posted here; they are often very artfully done and pleasing to look at...the fact that most of these leaves me cold I think has to do with my limitations as a viewer of flower photographs.

Steven

Bob Graham rvg · Apr 30, 2003

That differentiates the two for me. If it would look oversold framed, on a wall, and placed for viewing as art, it's a snapshot.

On the other hand, if a larger-than-4x6 copy would draw oohs and aahs hanging on the wall of your (pick a room) then it's not just a photograph, it's art.

Some photographers do not aspire to art, they really only want to fill albums with memories. Nothing wrong with that, I guess. It defines what the hobby/passion is to you.

Bob

Duane Kilby · Apr 30, 2003

Though the flower images left you cold, by saying "they are often very artfully done and pleasing to look at," they obviously appeal to your sense of beauty. But had you grown that rose bush from a root...watered and fertilized it, and kept it from freezing this past winter, watched the bud sprout and grow until.... Just like the image of your daughter. I appreciate it for the technical merits, and your daughter is a most appealing subject, but I can never feel what you feel when you see the image. That does not make me limited as a viewer.

Let me propose this: An image becomes a photograph if it completes the purpose intended by the photographer. If it was shot without purpose or fails to achieve it's purpose, it is relegated to snapshot purgatory.

..and thats all I have to say about that...

Duane

Steven Sterne said:
Another very interesting and reasoned post, though your argument
does rely heavily on each viewer to determine what is a photograph
for himself or herself - for example, I see a lot of beautiful
pictures of flowers posted here; they are often very artfully done
and pleasing to look at...the fact that most of these leaves me
cold I think has to do with my limitations as a viewer of flower
photographs.

Steven

Steven Sterne · Apr 30, 2003

Duane Kilby said:
Let me propose this: An image becomes a photograph if it completes
the purpose intended by the photographer. If it was shot without
purpose or fails to achieve it's purpose, it is relegated to
snapshot purgatory.

..and thats all I have to say about that...

Duane

Steven Sterne said:

Another very interesting and reasoned post, though your argument
does rely heavily on each viewer to determine what is a photograph
for himself or herself - for example, I see a lot of beautiful
pictures of flowers posted here; they are often very artfully done
and pleasing to look at...the fact that most of these leaves me
cold I think has to do with my limitations as a viewer of flower
photographs.

Steven

Click to expand...

ScottAllen · Apr 30, 2003

FWIW, if you care about the distinctions between snapshots and photographs, this book may be worth reading. While the author brings a clear political perspective that bleeds through his writing, he rasises some interesting questions about what a photograph is and gives some perspective on how to read photographs in the context of landscape, cities, art, journalism, portraits, and so on.

Scott

Steven Sterne · Apr 30, 2003

Thanks, I think I'll look for that...

Tomrok · Apr 30, 2003

A snapshot has very limited appeal (family & friends). A photograph has a much broader appeal to anyone in general.

I don't really know. It's just a quick, concise personal interpretation.

BTW, the image you posted is not a snapshot. I'm neither family nor friend, but I think it's a beautiful photograph.

Tom

Will F · Apr 30, 2003

You might want to learn some of the rules of photography and after doing so you may break them. This I would say is between a snap and image(I like that better than photograph or art) because you broke the rule of thirds which"generally"(as said all rules are made to be broken"if done on purpose") isn't done with a person image.IMHO

dimage · Apr 30, 2003

Snapshot is generally used in the case were the camera is just pointed and the shutter "snapped" with little care or skill.

Most often they are taken with small cameras with small lenses and high F-numbers to give large DoF. But if you put the camera in an auto mode with little or no thought to the shutter speed (maybe you set it just high enough to avoid camera shake) and/or aperture, totally rely on the auto-focus, give no thought to the composition, give no thought to the lighting, then you are taking "snapshots" with a DSLR in my opinion.

Sometimes one even gets lucky with a snapshot that "works" (often due to the subject and/or luck).

But if you start given some THOUGHT to what are are taking. You are thinking about the DoF or the shutter speed you need based on the subject motion, or how the light is affecting the picture and what you have to do about it, or how you have composed your scene, or if you need to say use some fill flash to fill in the shadows or a polarizer to cut a reflection, you are moving moving from taking a snapshot to MAKING a photograph.

Now if you start doing many or all of the above camera controls, AND you are controlling the lighting for the effect you want, AND you getting the composition that you want, and so forth, then you are moving from photography into creating Art.

The virtue of an SLR is that you can used it for taking snapshots, making photos or creating Art or all of these when you want to. I like to think that I mostly take "photographs" but I am not adverse to taking snapshots when I just want to capture the moment (but hopefully with more skill that a person with a pocket camera). I rarely try making "Art" (my skills are not up to it).

At least that is the way I see it.

Will F said:
You might want to learn some of the rules of photography and after
doing so you may break them. This I would say is between a snap and
image(I like that better than photograph or art) because you broke
the rule of thirds which"generally"(as said all rules are made to
be broken"if done on purpose") isn't done with a person image.IMHO

drowley · Apr 30, 2003

According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word ’’snapshot’’ was first used in 1808 by an English sportsman by the name of Sir Andrew Hawker. He noted in his diary that almost every bird he shot that day was taken by snapshot... meaning a hurried shot taken without deliberate aim. Snapshot, then was originally a hunting term. --Robin Williams, One Hour Photo.

Therefore, a snapshot is when you see something that is fast moving and you take a quick unplanned shot before the moment is gone.

Now, when you take a good photograph or snapshot, you don't always say "what a great photograph", or, "what a great snapshot". We tend to say, "nice shot"; a term used in all sports. Therefore, photography, like hunting, is a sport!

Steven Sterne · Apr 30, 2003

Will F said:
You might want to learn some of the rules of photography and after
doing so you may break them. This I would say is between a snap and
image(I like that better than photograph or art) because you broke
the rule of thirds which"generally"(as said all rules are made to
be broken"if done on purpose") isn't done with a person image.IMHO

Will:

I find your assumption that I do not know any of the rules of photography curious.

I am acquainted with the "rule of thirds," but I have not considered that it is relevant to the photographic genre at work here, which I would characterize as "headshot." And I have seen a lot of headshots, having spent a number of years acting, stage managing and directing plays. If you have some examples (taken by you or anyone else) of this type of picture that obeys the "rule of thirds," please direct me to them. I am eager to learn.

Steven

Will F · Apr 30, 2003

I'm sorry I obviously didn't understand your question or had no idea of your experienced background from your question. So please except my apology but if you see alot of head shots that don't use the rule they were poorly taken. I did it for 3 years out of Miami.(Sorry again just my opinion

Here's your headshot as you are use to in BW , with the rule you know.

Duane Kilby · May 1, 2003

You have been presented with one mans opinion of what makes your snapshot a photograph. (Thanks Will...)

Technically, he accomplished a number of things to "improve" the general nature of the image. Applying the rule of thirds, cropping out the distractions of the lighter background and patterned clothing, and converting to BW in a way which reduced the highlights of her forehead, and brought the natural focal point of the image back to her beautiful eyes. (FWIW, I'd still PS out the small wisps of hair peeking over her right hand.....)

For me anyway, without the feelings that come from looking into the eyes of MY child, Will's image has more universal emoting. But what about you...I am interested in knowing what you think of Will's image. Do you think differently now of your original image?

Steven Sterne · May 1, 2003

Clearly, Will's crop improves the image by getting rid of the bright background.

I do not prefer the back and white version of the image - to me, one of the successes of the picture is the liquid-chocolate of her eyes compared with the creamy pink-and-peach of her face. However, I do see that the forehead is less distracting in black-and-white; perhaps because I am not objectively looking at the image, I am looking at specific things as opposed to directing others to these things. In other words, the brightness of her forehead - which is there, no doubt - has never struck me as distracting from her eyes until you pointed it out that it was. It's a problem I might try to cure a different way, by selecting her forehead and the front of her nose and reducing the brightness slightly. Though my photoshop skills are limited.

Perhaps it is the lack of ability to see the image objectively, as a stranger would see it, that makes a parent (or gardener, or pet owner) sometimes more a snapshot-maker and less a photographer. It is true that the main target audience for pictures of my kids is a group of people who know them well but see them rarely; this is an easy audience to please. But I do like to get better at what I do.

Anyhow, this has been a very interesting exercise and I thank you both. If anyone else wants to show another way to reframe or otherwise improve the image, it's very helpful to me.

Steven

Duane Kilby said:

Steven Sterne · May 1, 2003

Will:

Your poinion is appreciated, and my only objection was to the condescending manner in which you asserted that I needed to "learn some of the rules of photography."

It is true that I have much to learn about photography, but not that I know nothing about it. Like most things, it's a vast continuum, the line between complete knowledge and complete ignorance. It's been over 20 years since my last photography class, and I read about photography only sparingly. But this board - particularly posts like this most recent one of yours - can be very helpful.

Detailed comments about your edit follow in my reply to Duane Kilby. I very much appreciate the time you took to do the edit, and the genuine desire you have to show what you meant in your earlier post.

Anyhow, thank you very much and I am sorry that my tone was so defensive.

Steven

Will F said:
I'm sorry I obviously didn't understand your question or had no
idea of your experienced background from your question. So please
except my apology but if you see alot of head shots that don't use
the rule they were poorly taken. I did it for 3 years out of
Miami.(Sorry again just my opinion
Here's your headshot as you are use to in BW , with the rule you know.

ken briefel · May 1, 2003

If the term grab-shot were used instead of snap shot, your picture clearly wouldn't be a grab-shot for the reasons you gave. The only thing I have a problem with the shot is that it feels slightly unbalanced because you cut off part of the right side of her face. Otherwise it's really very nicely done and the camera likes her.
Ken Briefel

http://www.pbase.com/kbriefel

Steven Sterne · May 1, 2003

Thanks, Ken - it's an interesting point; I usually frame this type of shot slightly off-center to avoid the picture looking flat. and to add a dynamic element - but I think that between your comment and Will's, I could do a better job of composing these than I do now.

So thanks for the suggestion, and thanks for your kind words otherwise.

Steven

ken briefel said:
If the term grab-shot were used instead of snap shot, your picture
clearly wouldn't be a grab-shot for the reasons you gave. The only
thing I have a problem with the shot is that it feels slightly
unbalanced because you cut off part of the right side of her face.
Otherwise it's really very nicely done and the camera likes her.
Ken Briefel

http://www.pbase.com/kbriefel

Sadja Herzog · May 1, 2003

I hadn't thought about the connection to shooting sports, but that's clearly where the term has its origin. A snap shot with a gun is a hurried shot taken without conscious aiming. The use of optics on guns in the early 19th c. made it logical to tranfer the terminology to photography.

As to the composition of your photo, the B&W crop suggests some alternatives, but here we enter the realm of the subjective. It's true that some of the distractions are trimmed, but now the image seems cramped and without air, and its asymmetry becomes a different distraction. Etc. I like your original, tho not perfect, don't care for the alternative -- but I guess you might be ahead of the game by now having some new things to think about for the future. Fortunately for you, you have an appealing subject with whom to experiment. Have fun.

liza wallis · May 1, 2003

I would call it a beautiful photo... really nicely captured. It is rich with both photographic excellence and emotion... what more could you want. I understand your question but I am not sure I would worry about it with a shot as lovely as this one.

liza
--
http://www.lizawallis.com

Petteri Sulonen · May 1, 2003

Steven Sterne said:
In the middle of a long, tedious thread that began and ended today,
there was a set of exchanges discussing "snapshots" as opposed to
"photographs." How do you differentiate? Is this a black and white
distinction, or is there a continuum from one to the next?

[snip]

Lovely picture, by the way.

A snapshot is simply one type of photograph. In my mind, the distinction is in the intent: a snapshot is something that very likely will be meaningful mostly for some specific people: it documents a vacation, family event, or something like that. Snapshots are sort of like photojournalism lite.

If a snapshot turns out to have general appeal and is put into a public context, it turns into something else: photojournalism, character study, situational... whatever. There's no clear distinction there.

For my own stuff, I shoot pictures with different intentions. Many or even most of them are snapshots -- photos that I think are interesting mostly to my (extended) family. I'm generally not terribly fussy about the technical quality with them, although of course I'm happy if they turn out well in that respect too. Here's one:

That's my grandmom-in-law last Christmas. (Canon AE-1 with 50/1.4 wide-open, Ektachrome 200 pushed to 1000, screwed up by the lab, and rescued in the scanner for a monochrome, for those of you who want to know.)

Then there are snapshots that I think may have more general interest; these touch on photojournalism or general documentary photography. Here's one (and no political flames, please -- I won't respond):

(Minolta D7i @28 mm efl.)

From that, we come to pictures that are more "photographed" but still taken more or less at the spur of the moment. These ones may have more aesthetic, photographic, or informational interest, beyond the immediate circle of people involved. Here's one:

(Minolta D7i again.)

And finally, there are the pictures that I've taken more or less purely for creative reasons; with them, my intention is to convey something that'll evoke a response in people who have nothing to do with the subject or area.

(10D with Canon 50/1.4.)

The pictures at one edge of the continuum are definitely "snapshots." I'd be mildly offended if pictures at the other end where characterized as such. The ones in the middle can function as snapshots, or as something else. IMO it's the function that determines whether a picture is a snapshot or a "serious photograph." Take a snapshot, preferably a nice one, print it at 8 x 10, mat and frame it, and hang it on your wall, and it stops being a snapshot.

My 5 eurocents' worth,

Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Photo lessons: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/lessons/ ]

Photographs or snappshots?

Steven Sterne

Guest

Senior Member

Well-known member

Steven Sterne

Guest

Member

Steven Sterne

Guest

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Steven Sterne

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Steven Sterne

Guest

Steven Sterne

Guest

Active member

Steven Sterne

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts