Photograph or Snapshot?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Photographyvirgin on December 1, 2007 at 2:09am

I would say that defining a snapshot is easy enough. The name pretty much explains itself. The interesting moment for me, is when a regular snapshot becomes a photography. To me an planed image is a photography and a snapshot is something that is taken suddenly, without preparation. But how much planing is necessary for it to be a photography? Where is the exact line between the two approaches? How do we define this line?
Can this line be defined by time? To me, if you decide to take a photography (no matter what type of camera you use) you make a concious decision about light, perspective, composition ect. - whereas if you take a snapshot, you take the picture before having time to actually ponder any of the above. So it takes longer to take a photography than to take a snapshot...but then again, for most professional photographers, it takes them seconds (sometimes even less) to adjust shutterspeed/lens opening ect. This would mean that, if you fx use a slow digital camera, it might actually take longer to take a "snapshot" than it would for a photographers to take a "photography"..in which case time can't be the defining factor.
To be honest, I don't believe that there is such a thing as an exact "this-is-where-it-transforms". As individuals we have an inherent urge to measure everything, to put everything in its respective boxes. This makes it easier for us to make distinctions. But the truth of the matter is, that most things are not this easily defined. Most things don't have an precise beginning and an exact end. Where does a man become a boy, a girl a woman? Where does the regular transform into art? Where are the precise and defining moments?
Well, my answer is that there is no answer. We can set up definitions, make restrictions and construct rules to satisfy our need to distinguish. But in the end this is all they are - constructed boxes. Not that there's anything wrong with this, as long as we recognise this fact, and as long as we are willing to challenge the design of our definitions.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by randy epperson on December 1, 2007 at 3:27am

One of the early pioneers of photography was Henri Cartier-Bresson who worked with a Leica rangefinder and a 50mm lens (most of the time). His photos were unplanned and spontaneous. You might call them snapshots. "The simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event as well as the precise organization of forms which gives that event its proper expression... . In photography, the smallest thing can be a great subject. The little human detail can become a leitmotif." — Henri Cartier-Bresson

Are you really asking which images are "photographs" and which are fodder for family albums that get stuffed in a closet and forgotten? To me a photograph is any image that catches my imagination, makes me go "Wow, how was that made", or inspires me. Basically any image that makes me want to take better photographs.

Isn't that the bottom line? If an image makes you want to strive to emulate it and you say to yourself "Now that is a photograph", doesn't that draw the line for you? Some people like landscapes, some cityscapes, others pictures of flowers. Comparing photographers as diverse as Diane Arbus and Ansel Adams shows there is a great allowance for images, for "photographs".

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ken Scribner on December 1, 2007 at 7:28am

Great topic. I read a post a while back that starting me thinking of snapshots and photographs. I think perhaps it would be more relevant to talk about professional photos and snapshots. By professional I mean all those who are striving to produce professional photos. With professional photos a certain minimum level of technical competence is required. In specific cases, of course, equipment matters but in the broad sense it is possible to take a disposable camera bought at the drug store and produce professional results. Then again an expensive outfit as we all know does not guarantee a professional result. So I guess for me it is more of a mindset or attitude.

Both types of photos have their own place. My mindset when I am shooting something I want to make money on is different from the candid snapshots I take. Let's look at an example. It's Christmas time and you want to take some professional shots of a 'typical' family around their Christmas tree to add to your stock photos. These shots must achieve a minimum level of technical competence to be valuable. At least they need to be sharp, in focus, proper lighting, composition etc.. The second scenario is Christmas and your family has gathered to open presents. You just come back into the room as 3 year old Billy opens one of his presents and his eyes light up and the expression on his face is pure kid joy. You grab your camera snap off several shots hoping to catch that wonderful expression. When you review the shots later you immediately see that you caught the expression but behind Billy was Katie's new stuffed giraffe. Even worse the neck of the giraffe is growing out of the top of Billy's head. The important thing is that even with the giraffe and the slight lack of sharpness this snapshot is valuable to you.
One final thought, I seem to be reading more articles/posts on the net that disparage 'mere' snapshots. For the reasons above snapshots have their place right along side professional photos. As a community we should gently and politely correct those with this particular notion.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeanette's OzPix on December 4, 2007 at 7:25pm

WOW!!! Thanks all for your replies!!

I hadn't been able to look at them until now... my internet has been down for the past few days. It sure was a surprise to get on line again and find all these responses.

And you've all helped clarify things for me. I do enjoy taking quick shots that capture the moment, so in that sense they are snapshots. However, I am learning that as I do it, to quickly find ways that would make the shot look better... eg., position, lighting, etc. Sometimes it really works! And other times??... well there's always the next shot!! That's what I love about digital! :-)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by kombizz on December 5, 2007 at 10:48pm

I reckon these days anybody who could buy these simple automatic compact digital cameras could make loads of snapshots, even if the person does not have much info about property of light or basic photographic knowledge.
By surprise many of their images are very good.
In other hand, a good photograph has different properties which all taken by a good knoweldgable photographer who consider many different factors before to press the last click.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeanette's OzPix on December 5, 2007 at 11:03pm

So a good photograph depends on the care taken to get a shot? Was the original intention to take a photograph or a snapshot?

▶ Reply to This