Lovely Day Media wrote:
Are you saying, then, that if there is no story to tell, it's a snapshot and not a photograph?  It is often said that a picture tells 1,000 words.  If it doesn't tell a thousand words, it's a snapshot?

  If I set my camera to full manual (I have, and it has been set that way since about a month after I got it almost 3 years ago), it means I have to think about the shutter speed, aperture and ISO (among other things).  Sometimes I take a shot and the shutter speed is WAY too slow (resulting in an overexposed and blurred picture).  This is sometimes due to inexperience.  It's sometimes due to something happening fast that I want to capture.  In either case, it's a "snapshot" and not a good one.  On the other hand, if I'm shooting a model, there is time to get things right. 

  Every shot isn't going to be a winner ... so some will be overexposed.  Some will be far too dark.  Some are going to be blurred a bit because of whatever reason.  At the end of the shot, though, even if I have moved the model to a place where a tree isn't growing out of their head, I've shot from an angle where their underwear isn't showing anymore and I've cropped the picture so there is no more trash can in the shot, many will say it's *still* a snapshot because it's "what I saw" and not "what I thought".  What part of this forest am I missing because I see a tree?

OK, let's try moving the analogy from visual images to words.  There is a difference between reporting the facts and creating a story to tell and telling it in a compelling manner.  The basics that you describe above (i.e., tree, trash and underwear) plus things like exposure, are the visual analogues of spelling, punctuation and grammar and penmanship.  Putting thought into making sure that a weather report is spelled properly and has proper punctuation and grammar doesn't change the fact that a weather report is "what you saw".  A weather report is not a funny joke or a fascinating story, no matter how much thought and effort is put into the calligraphy.

EDIT: To bring it back to photography, most commercial catalogue images are snapshots, even when perfectly composed and lit, because they are just reporting basic facts and are not saying anything interesting that involves thought or commentary.

AJScalzitti wrote:
Snapshots are "this is what I saw" and photography should be "this is what I thought"

Brilliant!

Lovely Day Media wrote:
If someone were to ask you how you define the difference between a snapshot and a photograph, what would your answer be?

But...a snapshot IS a photograph, no?

David Parsons wrote:
Snapshots are photographs.  False dichotomy.

I agree with this statement. We all know that a snap shot is a photograph so lets not try to re-write the english language with the ridiculous.

A snap shot is exactly what most people think it is.

A well thought out and executed photograph is just that.

A photograph is anything your camera captured- snapshot, well thought out, and or anything in-between.

It's that simple.

David Hirsh wrote:

Kind of like this?

= a photograph.  What type of photograph anyone wants to call it doesn't change the obvious.

Car or coupe'?  Good grief.

-JAY- wrote:
My camera taking a picture vs me making one.

My camera makes lots of pictures then because I snap a lot.


Next time I'll just send the camera out and stay home in bed.

David Parsons wrote:
Snapshots are photographs.  False dichotomy.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
I agree with this statement. We all know that a snap shot is a photograph so lets not try to re-write the english language with the ridiculous.

No one is re-writing the English language.  Words can have more than one meaning, sometimes even in the same sentence.

Robert Lynch wrote:

David Parsons wrote:
Snapshots are photographs.  False dichotomy.

No one is re-writing the English language.  Words can have more than one meaning, sometimes even in the same sentence.

Yes just like images...

Lovely Day Media wrote:
Are you saying, then, that if there is no story to tell, it's a snapshot and not a photograph?  It is often said that a picture tells 1,000 words.  If it doesn't tell a thousand words, it's a snapshot?

  If I set my camera to full manual (I have, and it has been set that way since about a month after I got it almost 3 years ago), it means I have to think about the shutter speed, aperture and ISO (among other things).  Sometimes I take a shot and the shutter speed is WAY too slow (resulting in an overexposed and blurred picture).  This is sometimes due to inexperience.  It's sometimes due to something happening fast that I want to capture.  In either case, it's a "snapshot" and not a good one.  On the other hand, if I'm shooting a model, there is time to get things right. 

  Every shot isn't going to be a winner ... so some will be overexposed.  Some will be far too dark.  Some are going to be blurred a bit because of whatever reason.  At the end of the shot, though, even if I have moved the model to a place where a tree isn't growing out of their head, I've shot from an angle where their underwear isn't showing anymore and I've cropped the picture so there is no more trash can in the shot, many will say it's *still* a snapshot because it's "what I saw" and not "what I thought".  What part of this forest am I missing because I see a tree?

You are way over thinking the technical.  So. Let's say you happen to out and about and you visually see something and you take a picture.  Is it just a physical 2D representation of the scene as the camera recorded it?  The image should be created to make a 2D representation of what your mind saw, how you inturptreted the scene.  We control our cameras, we modify light, we use rules of compisition, and all our tools to guide the viewer into seeing what/how we see the world

Imangine if in that scene you saw a bird overlooking a field, like a monarch surveying their kingdom.  Is that what we see or did you give us a bunch of trees?

Edit: my avi is an example that may help.  We were shooting shoes and the image before and after that are perfectly good shoe shots that could go in any catalog.  When I saw her I saw a fierce and commanding presence that commanded the room and all attention.  That was what I hope I shot.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
If someone were to ask you how you define the difference between a snapshot and a photograph, what would your answer be?

Snapshot: a quick-shot of a subject with very little planning. A "right-place-at-the-right-time" type of image (hopefully!). May be of a moving or "fleeting" subject...and probably will require a substantial amount of post-editing to address the unplanned mistakes in exposure and composition...to "turn-it-into" a Photograph.

Photograph: a well planned image. Exposure and composition are included in the planning process, and efforts are made to "create" the image rather than just "capture" the image. Probably will require very little post-editing.

Capture -vs- Create!

Art Silva Photography wrote:
To me;
Snap shot = Point and Shoot with no concern for light and real thought of composition
Photograph = the study of light and composition and putting thought on how to capture it all

+1

Lovely Day Media wrote:
If someone were to ask you how you define the difference between a snapshot and a photograph, what would your answer be?

It would depend on who was asking.

AJScalzitti wrote:
Snapshots are "this is what I saw" and photography should be "this is what I thought"

Photos start with what the photographer felt...

AJScalzitti wrote:
Snapshots are "this is what I saw" and photography should be "this is what I thought"

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Excellent !!!

I agree, great way of putting it. I'm going to use this in the future.

John
--
John Fisher
900 West Avenue, Suite 633
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
305 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

Fred Greissing wrote:
Difference between a snapshot and a photographer.....????

A snapshot is a photograph. Any discussion beyond that is pseudo intellectual verbal diarrhea.

Unless all photographs are also snapshots, then no, it isn't.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
I understand that many people go through many more hysterics than others do.  Some people spend 5-6 hours retouching an image to make it "perfect" where others don't.  Some people have been doing this for 30 years and have all sorts of high tech and/or very expensive equipment that a person just starting out doesn't have and can't yet afford.

Great photos have been taken with relatively little planning and minimal equipment.  Horrible snapshots have been the result of hours of work and $10K in equipment.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
After a long talk with an artist colleague, this is my final conclusion:  It is not up to anyone else to decide if my image is a "snapshot" or a "photograph", especially if I've done the best I can.  There will always be someone who has more and/or better equipment.  There will always be someone with more experience.  Everyone will always have a different opinion on angles, f stops, shutter speeds and many other variables, too.

  Just because I chose a different shutter speed or composition doesn't mean my image is a "snapshot".  Anyone who says my image is inferior or theirs is superior is likely looking to put my work down so they can make theirs look or seem better.  Everything isn't for everyone else.

  For instance ... I can cook well enough to keep myself and anyone else from starving to death.  Some may even say I can cook things that taste good.  I'm no chef, though.  I'm sure ANY chef can fix a meal that most people would just say "wow" to ... does it mean that mine is food and theirs is a meal?  They're both meals .... one just has a lot more time, education, experience and perhaps ingredients to it.  What if a person is allergic to wine, though, and everything the chef cooked has wine in it?  It doesn't matter how much time and effort the chef put into it, they aren't going to be able to eat it and be comfortable afterwards (unless they die).

  So for this reason ... I still appreciate all the opinions, input, disagreements and everything else that everyone put into this thread... but from this point forward, I'll be the judge of my own work (not that anyone here said anything about my work) as long as there is no paying customer/client.

You really do seem to be obsessed with equipment for some reason.  People don't make great photographs because they have an extensive collection of high end gear.  They make great photographs because they have a vision and know how to achieve it with the right tools.  Very often, those tools do not need to be extensive. 

Yes, there is a difference between something that is just food that will keep you alive and a meal that is enjoyed for more than the fact that it will keep you from being hungry.

The only thing that you have written that doesn't come off as overly defensive is your last sentence.  You are correct.  The only people whose opinions really matter are the intended audience and if something is created just for you, your opinion rules.

Every image says something.  Some speak clearly of interesting concepts.  Others mumble incoherently about things no one cares about.  Most just plainly report basic facts.  If your work speaks to you and you are happy with what it says and how it says it, then you need not care if it is a "snapshot" or a "photograph".

Paul Pardue Photography wrote:
i was told (in another thread), that this was a snapshot... 

...

So I really don't know anymore what qualifies as a snapshot or a 'photograph'

The problem with taking the general concepts of this thread and applying them to a specific image is that this is not the critique forum.

Vector One Photography wrote:
A photograph means something to everyone who sees it, a snapshot only means something to those that know the content.

I like this way of saying it.  I call snapshots record shots. I was there I saw this and I took a picture. I call a photograph trying to capture that location or anything else in the best way possible to strike a cord in the viewer.

Robert Lynch wrote:
You really do seem to be obsessed with equipment for some reason.  People don't make great photographs because they have an extensive collection of high end gear.  They make great photographs because they have a vision and know how to achieve it with the right tools.  Very often, those tools do not need to be extensive. 

Yes, there is a difference between something that is just food that will keep you alive and a meal that is enjoyed for more than the fact that it will keep you from being hungry.

I'm not obsessed with equipment.  Yes, there are things I'd like to have.  This is probably true of everyone who isn't made of money.  However, being told that this is a "snapshot" because I didn't take lighting into account ... well, the person looking at the picture may not know that my only available light is a speedlight and I'm on location (as opposed to in a studio with really expensive lights).  How can they realistically say I didn't take light into account if they don't know what I have available?  What if I got the exact look I was going for?  To me, it means my "vision" is different than theirs.  It's not inferior or superior unless I say it is.  If it's inferior then I need to step up my game.  If it's superior, it's not my place to say to them that mine is superior.  I do think it's okay to say I disagree, though.

  And yes, there is a difference between a meal that will keep one alive and one that will be "enjoyed".  It's a matter of perspective, though.  Some people eat to live.  Others live to eat.  One isn't inferior or superior to the other.  It's a difference of opinion, style, priority and/or desire.  For me, food is food.  I eat to live.  I understand that if a person is paying a lot of money, they want something to eat that's *really* good.  If someone shops for the food, drives to their house to cook it and serves it to them hot, do they really have a right to complain that it's "inedible" because someone else can do it better?  More importantly (at least to me), does anyone have a right to "complain" if they're not being "asked" to eat it?

  The point of all this is to say I keep learning new ways to do things.  As long as I continue to do that, my game will continue to improve.  I don't need anyone to tell me I take "snapshots".

Robert Lynch wrote:

The problem with taking the general concepts of this thread and applying them to a specific image is that this is not the critique forum.

I was told that in a critique thread.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
However, being told that this is a "snapshot" because I didn't take lighting into account ... well, the person looking at the picture may not know that my only available light is a speedlight and I'm on location (as opposed to in a studio with really expensive lights).  How can they realistically say I didn't take light into account if they don't know what I have available?

Because it doesn't matter.  A photograph, any photograph, succeeds or fails based entirely on the final result.  No one ever takes into consideration what tools you did or did not have available.  No one takes into consideration how much physical effort or time was spent creating it.  The only thing anyone not involved with the creation of an image will ever care about is the final result, because that's all that they see, that's all that they appreciate and frankly, that's the way it should be.  You don't get extra credit for not having certain gear or having needed to hang upside down from a tree to get the shot.  This is something that relatively inexperienced photographers often have a difficult time appreciating.  They worked hard.  They did what they could with what little that they had.  They got results that made them happy.  And then the rest of the world yawns and the photogher can't understand why their hard work under limiting circumstances isn't appreciated.  A non-photographer friend of mine got to learn this first hand several years ago.  He helped me with arranging locations and handling logistics for a promotional calendar that I shot.  He was at most of the shoots.  Some were fairly easy.  Some were long and physically demanding.  When the calendar came out, he expected people to respond more enthusiastically to the difficult shoots, but that's not what happened.  People's responses to the various images were based entirely on what they perceived as the quality of the final results.

While you are mentioning the limitations of your location equipment, you aren't allowing for the fact that another photographer with more experience and a better developed vision could potentially use the same camera as you, the same speed light and the same model at the same location and still create a superior image.  While it is true that some tasks can only be accomplished with certain tools, in the end, it's usually the limitations of the person using the tools that is the biggest factor.  When the other person made the observation about lighting, did you look at it as a possible learning experience?  Did you explain what resources you had available at the time and ask for input about how you might have approached the task differently?  People have done excellent work on location with just a few speedlights.  David Hobby and Joe McNally come to mind.

Paul Pardue Photography wrote:
I was told that in a critique thread.

I assumed you were.  Unfortunately, no one can comment on it here.

David Hirsh wrote:

Autonomy II wrote:
Snapshot:

An image taken, "on the fly," comparitively-spontaneously, without forethought as to composition (see candids, possibly street photography or, my early portfolio).

Kind of like this?

And there you go.  THAT is a "snapshot," yet it's perfect.

I would say I 95% take snapshots.  Sorry, just how I do it.  I may have a vague plan, but I shoot what I see and sometimes I really love it.