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 requires no thought (well next to none). I guess it's like what defines a Candid from a Portrait.

PS: I don't see a 'snapshot' as being relatively a negative thing like some people use the term.

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:

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

Photograph:

An image taken for a purpose, with forethought as to the nature of the image, it's intended purpose, composition and subject (see portraiture, client-driven photography, commercial work or good quality nakey comps).

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

+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?

I would say that audience and intent would have to be taken into consideration first.


Though I do like this, as well:

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

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).

Photograph:

An image taken for a purpose, with forethought as to the nature of the image, it's intended purpose, composition and subject (see portraiture, client-driven photography, commercial work or good quality nakey comps).

+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?

Intent.  One is made, the other is taken.

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

With all due respect and without 100% disagreeing ... don't you "see" a lot of things before pressing the shutter button?

  For instance, if you're shooting on location, one doesn't get to pick the scenery unless they change locations.  However, one can shoot in such a way that this tree is on the left of the subject, on the right, coming out of the top of their head or not in the shot at all (among many other variables/scenarios). 

  Does this scenario make the result a photograph or a snapshot?  Or is that too few known things to make that decision?  What else needs to be known?

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

I never thought about it like that before but yeah - I agree with this 100%

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?

Snapshots are photographs.  False dichotomy.

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

Excellent !!!

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

very well put.

All snapshots are photographs, but not all photographs are snapshots.

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?

I think that most people define a snapshot as a lucky shot, meaning no skills involved, or knowledge about lighting, or no application of controlled lighting skills etc.

I think that "snapshot" is also used as a derragotary term, by photographers who want to put down other photographers.

The photograph, OTOH, is something carefully planned and executed, with previously envisioned concept.

However, as it's the case with me, I LOVE the look of a "snapshot", or candid. I have some snapshots in my portfolio that are the results of ten people on the set...

Richardson and Juergen Teller have this "snapshot" style and receiving heavy derision, but people who don't think that they should be making money from it.

However, there is one other photographer, a former MM member, Michael Donovan, http://michaeldonovanphotography.com/ who doesn't use extra lights, etc., but I think that his work is absolutely brilliant, much more evocative than what most "photographers/studio photographers" produce.

Just my opinion!

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).

Photograph:

An image taken for a purpose, with forethought as to the nature of the image, it's intended purpose, composition and subject (see portraiture, client-driven photography, commercial work or good quality nakey comps).

+1

Hey that's pretty, click = Snapshot

Hey that's a nice area, scene, whatever I'm going to get the camera on a clear day and shoot that in the early morning light because I want it to look like this= Photograph.

David Parsons wrote:
Snapshots are photographs.  False dichotomy.

However, this is also true

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

Carlos Occidental wrote:
very well put.

All snapshots are photographs, but not all photographs are snapshots.

These two statements are contradictory.

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).

Eros Fine Art Photo wrote:
A snapshot give little to no consideration for things like lighting; composition; tones; lines; curves; mood; posing; or timing.

Kind of like this?

Lovely Day Media wrote:
Snapshot Vs. Photograph

They can both look like crap or remarkable

Lovely Day Media wrote:

With all due respect and without 100% disagreeing ... don't you "see" a lot of things before pressing the shutter button?

  For instance, if you're shooting on location, one doesn't get to pick the scenery unless they change locations.  However, one can shoot in such a way that this tree is on the left of the subject, on the right, coming out of the top of their head or not in the shot at all (among many other variables/scenarios). 

  Does this scenario make the result a photograph or a snapshot?  Or is that too few known things to make that decision?  What else needs to be known?

You start with what you think, imagine, what you want to show the world.  Then find the location/model/subject or whatever.  Also with all do respect I think you are approaching it too technically/practically and missing the forest through the trees.  Show me your story

David Hirsh wrote:
Kind of like this?

You don't think timing was involved? Composition?

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

Well done.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

You don't think timing was involved? Composition?

The is the Henri Cartier-Bresson "defining moment" sort of thing.

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?

Yes a very well timed sexual assult... You do know the story behind this?  The drunk navy man who just grabbed a girl and forced her into a kiss.  She and he did not know each other and she didn't want to kiss him.

HungryEye wrote:
I think of a snapshot as an image taken at the spur of the moment. Shot from the hip, as it were...

I see a photograph as an image that has been planned, thought out and then deliberately executed.

eg.: A camera phone shot of a drunk friend in a bar = snapshot.
       A planned out image of a drunk friend in a bar, where you have moved to a specific location for better light and deliberately picked out your favourite sepia filter in Instagram = photograph.

To me it is about intent.

The term "snapshot" has also become synonymous with a poor quality photograph in many cases.

In your example above both images would be considered snapshots. Even though one was planned...it was no better executed.

As with so many terms, the internet or perhaps just because of the greater number of photographers, the definition has expanded...right or wrong. Much like the term "GWC" is defined by the intent of the photographer. I hear many people using it as term synonymous with "amateur" or "inexperienced." (though I don't agree with that label).

AJScalzitti wrote:
Yes a very well timed sexual assult... You do know the story behind this?  The drunk navy man who just grabbed a girl and forced her into a kiss.  She and he did not know each other and she didn't want to kiss him.

I always laugh when I see that image and can only imagine if that same photograph occurred today. It wouldn't be a classic, timeless image. It would be evidence in his assault case.

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

That about covers it.

David Hirsh wrote:
Kind of like this?

There is no reason that a snapshot can't be a success.  Sometimes, what the photographer "saw" is more important than what the photographer "thought".

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?

Perfect example.
Look at her hand. would pose her hand like that in the studio?

Karl Blessing wrote:
I guess it's like what defines a Candid from a Portrait.

This is just SO wrong Karl.  Candid simply means not posed. Thus, you can have a candid portrait. I have several in my portfolio here.

But as for the original question, I think we all have come to a general consensus on that.

AJScalzitti wrote:
You start with what you think, imagine, what you want to show the world.  Then find the location/model/subject or whatever.  Also with all do respect I think you are approaching it too technically/practically and missing the forest through the trees.  Show me your story

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?

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
You don't think timing was involved? Composition?

Umm, if I remember my photography history, the sailor was told to grab the nurse and lay a big smack on her puss.

Images of this nature/fame always generate legends, myths, etc. Consider the rumor taht Capra never actually took the shot of the soldier getting hit in the Spanish Civil War and many others.