What's the difference between snapshot & photograph?

[Judyjo]

On Steve's digicam Photo of the Month site he says entries should be photographs, not snapshots. I've been thinking about this for a couple of days now. Is the difference the camera - point & shoot vs. high end, or is it the amount of preparation you put into the subject, or how about the skill level? What does it take for a snapshot to become a photograph? Is there a criteria for a 'photograph'? What do you guys think? Just curious what other people think. I don't think I've ever seen it discussed, or probably it isn't even important enough to discuss, but I'm still curious.

Judy

 

[Theresa K]

The difference between the two has to do with the talent behind the camera. A 'snapper' can have a very high end camera and get an occasional good pic just by luck. A photographer, however, can get excellent products even with marginal equipment based on focus, composition and exposure.

--
Theresa
Constructive criticism always welcome!
http://www.pbase.com/theresa_k
C-5O6O & FL-4O

 

[MotorCityJim]

On Steve's digicam Photo of the Month site he says entries should
be photographs, not snapshots. I've been thinking about this for a
couple of days now. Is the difference the camera - point & shoot
vs. high end, or is it the amount of preparation you put into the
subject, or how about the skill level? What does it take for a
snapshot to become a photograph? Is there a criteria for a
'photograph'? What do you guys think? Just curious what other
people think. I don't think I've ever seen it discussed, or
probably it isn't even important enough to discuss, but I'm still
curious.

Judy

--
Jim K...UZI'ing, & UZing (c-7oo), just outside Detroit, MI...US of A
http://www.pbase.com/jkorsog ...Pbase supporter
http://jimk.instantlogic.com/

 

[remford]

Judyjo wrote:

In its most basic terms, I've always associated a snapshot being something candid or without preparation regarding either the subject OR the shooter. I think in this sense, "photograph" means any shot taken with a specific purpose, forethought, or preparation.

On Steve's digicam Photo of the Month site he says entries should
be photographs, not snapshots. I've been thinking about this for a
couple of days now. Is the difference the camera - point & shoot
vs. high end, or is it the amount of preparation you put into the
subject, or how about the skill level? What does it take for a
snapshot to become a photograph? Is there a criteria for a
'photograph'? What do you guys think? Just curious what other
people think. I don't think I've ever seen it discussed, or
probably it isn't even important enough to discuss, but I'm still
curious.

Judy

--

E.

Olympus C-8080, 1GB Sandisk CF, 4GB Hitachi CF II

 

[KarenInWV]

I've seen photographs taken with point and shoots. It isn't the camera. It's the photographer.

For me a photo is something that sets the shot apart. Regardless of subject matter. I can look at a hundred flower macros (and I probably have and there will be something about one that makes it exceptional. That could be composition, vision, lighting, a lot of things.

So in the end, the more experienced photographer is going to be more likely to produce a photograph. But then again, I've seen quite a few photographs from people who are new to photography.

Look at it this way. If it looks like every other rose shot you've seen then it's a snapshot. Or another way I view it. Would I want to enlarge this and hang it on my wall.

Karen

http://www.pbase.com/kstuebin



'Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees.'

Last words of General Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson, killed in error by his own troops at the battle of Chancellorsvillle during the US Civil War, 1863.

 

[Jackeroo]

Judyjo wrote:
" probably it isn't even important enough to discuss, but I'm still
curious."
But nonetheless you've opened a can of worms for sure. LOL
I wouldn't be surprised to see this thread reach a high number of
replies.
But the subject is far too Subjective to ever get a reply that is not
simply somebody's 'Opinion'.
From 4 replies already I quote:
Theresa: "In my opinion .."
Elan: "I've always associated ..."
Karen: "For me ..."
Jim: "No thought = snapshot. Thoughtful = Photograph"

And I fully support the value of anybody's opinion ... to them.
But some will agree with others and some will disagree with others.
Don't be surprised to see some 'expert' dissertations explaining exactly
what a Photograph is versus what a Snapshot is ..

But they wont convince me that a Photograph is anything other
than a Snapshot or vice versa.

My thesaurus says this:
Photograph: def, to use a camera to make a picture, image or likeness of.

Webster's online dictionary says this:
Pho´to'graph
n. 1. A picture or likeness obtained by photography.

Jim's thoughts hit the spot for me without question, but you could also
put a lot of thought into a shot and come up with a terrible result.
Conversely you could whip the camera up to the eye and grab a 'snap'
of something and get an absolutely stunning result.
Question : Which one gets the POTD
and
Would people look at the Stunning image and comment ..
"What an absolutely beautiful 'Snapshot' ... ??

That's good enough for me ... LOL

jack
http://www.pbase.com/jackeroo

 

[RichardR]

The difference is in the eyes of the beholder. A quickly taken offhand shot can be a great photograph just as a carefully planned picture can be pejoratively labeled "snapshot". An image can have a better chance of being considered worthy if the photographer has 'the eye' and photographic skills.

Subject, composition, image quality, and most of all, viewer appeal, all go into the equation when considering which of these broad categories an image will fall.

Attempting to define the difference falls into the same category as the late Supreme Justice Black once wrote about pornography; "I can't define it but I know it when I see it".

As always, Karen hit the nail on the head with her comment:

I've seen photographs taken with point and shoots. It isn't the
camera. It's the photographer.

****
--
http://www.pbase.com/richardr
E-10&C-2100UZ&C-5050Z&C-3000Z&D-40&D-380&Fuji2600Z
PBase Supporter

 

[aliendad]

IMO I feel they are also trying to say, not just a standard photo, as in selftimer of family or cuddling cat or possing by monument or what you might call "everyday poses"

all examples above are fictional and are in no way relevent to any taken or to be taken shots.
lol

Paul....

'if something bad happens, it's because something better is going to.'

C8080, lexar 512 40x wa, half a brain

My Photo's http://www.thewildlifepark.fotopic.net

 

[Bob Rheaume]

Hi, Judy! I would certainly agree with most of what's already been said, except that I don't believe that a photograph necessarily requires a great deal of preparation and I do believe that a well done candid can make a very compelling photograph. For me, the difference mainly has to do with the appeal of the picture. A snapshot can have a great deal of personal significance to the shooter as an important record from his or her life, while a photograph is much more likely to appeal to a broad audience outside of the shooter's inner circle. I might add that it's often difficult for the photographer to separate the two, as it's very hard to have an objective or detached view of our own photos.

Bob
http://www.pbase.com/caseus

 

[Brian G.]

Hi Judy,

I've read the replies to your post with interest, and no doubt there will me more to come.

As I've always understood it, it is the process of taking the shot itself that differentiates between taking a snapshot and making a photograph. The name itself reflects this- a "snap" shot is a hastily made picture taken without much forethought (just like a "snap" judgement, for example).

I think it's important to note that using this definition, the ultimate quality of the picture or the expense of the equipment making it do not come into play. Certainly there are wonderful snapshots, as there are terrible photographs. Again- it's the process...the intent to make the shot that differentiates the two.

Let me give one example to try to clarify:

A tourist walks down the street and sees a famous building. He grabs his camera (doesn't matter what kind or how expensive, but to be specific lets say it's an Oly E1) frames the building and takes the shot.

Another tourist walks down the same street and sees the same famous building. She notices and examines the color, quality and direction of the light as it hits the building's facade. She walks all around the building, paying attention to things like how her changing perspective is altering subject/background relationships, in short, she really examines the scene before her with the intention of shooting a pleasing shot of this building. Then, she decides that the nicest spot from which to take this shot is exactly where the first tourist stood. She lifts her camera (let's say it's some cheap Sony just for discussion's sake) and shoots.

The second tourist's shot is almost identical to the first tourists shot. But hers is a photograph, his is a snapshot.

Ideally, the quality of the shot itself should enable a viewer to determine the amount of care and forethought that went into it, but, this is not always the case, as in the example I just gave.

Many working pros I know (and me too, actually) differntiate three different kinds of shots:

Snapshot- hastily done, no real forethought

Grab shot- hastily done because there wasn't much time, but still as well thought out as possible under the conditions
Photograph- not hastily done, well planned well executed.

An interesting subject to bring up, Judy. I look forward to reading more of the replies.

Kind Regards,
Brian

On Steve's digicam Photo of the Month site he says entries should
be photographs, not snapshots. I've been thinking about this for a
couple of days now. Is the difference the camera - point & shoot
vs. high end, or is it the amount of preparation you put into the
subject, or how about the skill level? What does it take for a
snapshot to become a photograph? Is there a criteria for a
'photograph'? What do you guys think? Just curious what other
people think. I don't think I've ever seen it discussed, or
probably it isn't even important enough to discuss, but I'm still
curious.

Judy

--
Brian (el picador, Sir Brian)



Digital Image Gallery:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/spiritmist/Brian_Geldziler_Digital_Image_Gallery/index.htm

 

[OlyOlyOxenFree]

If a photograph looks good I challenge anyone to just look at it and determine if it is a "photograph" or a "snapshot."

This is so subjective that it is comical.

Oly

---------------------------

'It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but a
great deal more to stand up to your friends.' - Professor Dumbledore.

 

[G. Gray]

IMO...

Everbody appears to be discussing a snapshot versus photograph as if it were a real thing. In fact they are the same. A snapshot used to mean quickly taken and a photograph meant with some thought and preparation. But, having said that let me suggest that the terms nowadays are really a sort of class distinction. A putdown as it were.

For example, a camera with a fixed lens will always be a point and shoot. A camera over 600$US will be a prosumer. In North America the weather moves from west to east so the good side of town is the west end and the older or poorer neighbourhoods are are in the centre or east side.

A photographer (PRO) using the term loosely or someone with removable lenses and expensive equipment wishing to exercise his class distinction will sometimes call a photograph a "snapshot". Of course , that will apply to someone else, not them.

Another example. A fast moving hockey game. Is a picture an action photograph or a snapshot. Well it depends on who took it and the kind of equipment they used.

Using that criteria, I am not as fast as I once was so all my pics must be photographs and my cameras of choice are point and shoot prosumer. And of couse I live in the north end because if I was in the west I would be in the lake. And yup, I know it when I see it too.

 

[cheng2004]

personally, there's not much of a difference. a snapshot of 2 people at a cafe talking could easily be a really good photograph, as well, with meaning, or whatever. it's more that a photograph has been considered at least for a little bit of time. snapshots, by definition, "freeze" a little piece of time. therefore, then, reportage photography could fall under the same category. at elast, though, the photographer has given some thought, and therefore the photo is more likely to have impact, visually, or mentally, stimulating. that's why a few snapshots are really good, but only a few. meanwhile, a photograph doesn't have to have a meaning, like a shot of a flower, for example. you can squeeze all these meanings out of it, but it's just a photo of a flower. however, the visual factor is the main factor in making this photo good.
precisely why even polaroids can make good shots.

On Steve's digicam Photo of the Month site he says entries should
be photographs, not snapshots. I've been thinking about this for a
couple of days now. Is the difference the camera - point & shoot
vs. high end, or is it the amount of preparation you put into the
subject, or how about the skill level? What does it take for a
snapshot to become a photograph? Is there a criteria for a
'photograph'? What do you guys think? Just curious what other
people think. I don't think I've ever seen it discussed, or
probably it isn't even important enough to discuss, but I'm still
curious.

Judy

--
My Gallery at (first pictures up)
please comment and rate.

 

[fishcatcher]

Judyjo wrote:
" probably it isn't even important enough to discuss, but I'm still
curious."
But nonetheless you've opened a can of worms for sure. LOL
I wouldn't be surprised to see this thread reach a high number of
replies.

Cans of worms are good. They give folks an opportunity to learn, gain knowledge, not just fire opinions off. There are 'opinions' and knowledgeable opinions--and other variants too.

But the subject is far too Subjective to ever get a reply that is not
simply somebody's 'Opinion'.
From 4 replies already I quote:
Theresa: "In my opinion .."
Elan: "I've always associated ..."
Karen: "For me ..."
Jim: "No thought = snapshot. Thoughtful = Photograph"

Judy asked a thoughtful question that has some really thoughtful answers in numerous books on the subject, excellent photographer's websites, Art or Photography school courses, and on and on. A lttle knowledge on the subject to augment your 'opinion' that it is all 'subjective' opinion might prove useful. A lot of what gets said on this forum about the functions and use of Oly cameras is directed at how best to use them to produce particular photographic effects. Are those just subjective opinions too?

And I fully support the value of anybody's opinion ... to them.
But some will agree with others and some will disagree with others.
Don't be surprised to see some 'expert' dissertations explaining
exactly
what a Photograph is versus what a Snapshot is ..

That might well prove interesting. It might well produce some thoughts that some posters might not have considered. I would hope they just didn't say--Sheesh, just more opinions. I got my camera on auto and I'll live with what I get when I point it and pull the trigger. The defaults in the camera were designed by engineers with pretty good opinions--my bad, forgot that all opinions were equal.

But they wont convince me that a Photograph is anything other
than a Snapshot or vice versa.

Hmmmm. I wonder if that says more about other subjects than the original question.

My thesaurus says this:
Photograph: def, to use a camera to make a picture, image or
likeness of.

Webster's online dictionary says this:
Pho´to'graph
n. 1. A picture or likeness obtained by photography.

Now, there is a real authority for you. And a circular definition to boot. Very helpful. I guess these are the only two things we need to read about the various forms that photographs can take.

Jim's thoughts hit the spot for me without question, but you could
also
put a lot of thought into a shot and come up with a terrible result.
Conversely you could whip the camera up to the eye and grab a 'snap'
of something and get an absolutely stunning result.
Question : Which one gets the POTD

It might help to differentiate an 'accident'--a nice accident, from a thoghtful attempt that failed. Definitions won't be built on either of these.

and

Would people look at the Stunning image and comment ..
"What an absolutely beautiful 'Snapshot' ... ??

That's good enough for me ... LOL

Well, now that we have an authoritative 'opinion'....

jack
http://www.pbase.com/jackeroo

 

[alawong]

Most of the time the viewers of a photo don't know how much thought the photographer had put into a photo. So there's a difficulty in making any judgement based on how thoughtful the photographer had been when he/she took the photo.

The viewers can only judge by examining the photo itself. The quality of the photo is the only thing that counts.

------------
Al

Subject, composition, image quality, and most of all, viewer
appeal, all go into the equation when considering which of these
broad categories an image will fall.

Attempting to define the difference falls into the same category as
the late Supreme Justice Black once wrote about pornography; "I
can't define it but I know it when I see it".

As always, Karen hit the nail on the head with her comment:

I've seen photographs taken with point and shoots. It isn't the
camera. It's the photographer.

****
--
http://www.pbase.com/richardr
E-10&C-2100UZ&C-5050Z&C-3000Z&D-40&D-380&Fuji2600Z
PBase Supporter

 

[TheronFamily]

On Steve's digicam Photo of the Month site he says entries should
be photographs, not snapshots. I've been thinking about this for a
couple of days now. Is the difference the camera - point & shoot
vs. high end, or is it the amount of preparation you put into the
subject, or how about the skill level? What does it take for a
snapshot to become a photograph? Is there a criteria for a
'photograph'? What do you guys think? Just curious what other
people think. I don't think I've ever seen it discussed, or
probably it isn't even important enough to discuss, but I'm still
curious.

Judy

--
Gallery ~ http://kevin-theron.fotopic.net/
Just reflecting on my view of life's view
See Seven Five OH
------------------- and a taste of Africa ---------------------

 

[Beacon]

On Steve's digicam Photo of the Month site he says entries should
be photographs, not snapshots.

. . . it that to be selected on his site, you probably better put a little thought into your shot.

You may have the cutest little girl in the world in the frame, but if you cut off her ear, and there is some kind of background object growing out of her head, and maybe about 3/4ths of a couple of other kids in the frame, then that 'snapshot' will likely not do as well as would a 'photograph' of the little girl into which you put just a little thought. Like moving yourself (or her) just a bit so the background thing is no longer visible, etc.

If you see a subject, and just ram the camera up to your eye and pull the trigger, you most likely will come out with a snapshot. But if you take just a moment to analyze the scene, and apply however much photographic technique that you currently master, you're much more likely to get a pleasing photograph.

Sometimes we get lucky, and one of our snapshots is outstanding. But more often than not, our photographs benefit from (at least a little) planning with regard to the composition and lighting.

--

 

[digital ed]

There are paintings that are "paintings" and there are paintings that are art. They seem to sell them both so "art" and "photographs" must be in the eye of the beholder.

I personally think that a photograph has more emotional impact from the composition, lighting, and printing. Again it seems that it is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't think this question can be answered absolutely.

Best regards,

Ed

 

[dals_rule]

Bob's (and lots of others') snapshots outshine any photograph I've attempted (but I'm trying to improve.....)

 

[R. C. Johnson]

On Steve's digicam Photo of the Month site he says entries should
be photographs, not snapshots. I've been thinking about this for a
couple of days now. Is the difference the camera - point & shoot
vs. high end, or is it the amount of preparation you put into the
subject, or how about the skill level? What does it take for a
snapshot to become a photograph? Is there a criteria for a
'photograph'? What do you guys think? Just curious what other
people think. I don't think I've ever seen it discussed, or
probably it isn't even important enough to discuss, but I'm still
curious.

Judy

--
R. C. Johnson