Posted by Steve Sieren on October 14, 2009 at 12:35 AM
Just curious about this, anyone have personal beliefs of what a snapshot is?
Mine was something you do quickly w/ out a tripod say if I was in a rush.
The main question for me is I'm not sure if I try it twice is it still a snapshot?
I looked it up and Wiki says:
A snapshot is popularly defined as a photograph that is "shot" spontaneously and quickly, most often without artistic or journalistic intent. Snapshots are commonly considered to be technically "imperfect" or amateurish--out of focus or poorly framed or composed.
Posted by Paul Duval on October 14, 2009 at 8:59 AM
If I see a developing scene from the car, stop jump out of the vehicle, quickly grab the camera and all of the necessary equipment quickly set up, set the camera, compose and shoot even if it's a couple of images and then the light disappears. To me that's a snapshot, or if you hiking on your way to some spot you plan to shoot, and you stumble on a great image and shoot it that would be a snap shot as well. I guess the driving point behind what I'm saying a snapshot is an unplanned, found wow moment. We all pretty much stand in awe of Ansel Adams, Carleton Watkins and Edward Weston. Their equipment prevented snapshots simply by their design and weight and paucity of film. Not to mention all of the other the wet plate guys. The term "snapshot" came into vogue with the small handheld film cameras that didn't require all the accoutrements of the professional photographer, like the famous Kodak Brownie. If the photographs Robert Kapra took at Omaha Beach on June 6th 1944 were viewed under the Wiki definition they would be just "snapshots." " Their "caveat" escape hatch being the word being often. I think that's throwing a ton of images under the bus.
Posted by Anish Desai on October 14, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Hmmm... a philosophical question. I take snapshots on occasion, all of which invariably end up in the trash (unless they're of people). I don't totally agree with wiki's definition, since those of us who pursue photoraphy seriously don't often take photos without at least some artistic intent, and most of us are proficient enough that even snapshots will likely be in focus and properly exposed. That said, for me what separates a snapshot from a more serious photo is the lack of forethought or preparation. If I reach for my tripod, I no longer would consider it a snapshot since the very act of setting up the tripod forces me to think about what I'm doing. In your example, I would not consider it a snapshot, since going back to try again implies a conscious effort to change or imrove upon the initial attempt.
Steve, I think Paul has outlined the thoughts on this issue very well. I'm sure to a certain extent there are truly personal thoughts & opinions on the subject, but again most would agree in principal on the end results. Basically stated, if the shot did not come out as planned it must have been a snapshot
To be a bit more serious, I would think that the usage of the tripod has merit in the definition, but would never consider a wildlife photographer hand holding a large IVR lens basically to be taking snapshots. I guess for us old film shooters there are no more snapshots. Every shot has a serious price tag and as such puts some very intentional thoughts behind almost ever shot for more reasons then one.
To me, a "snapshot" is what people take with a point and shoot - little if any planning, no tripod, no consideration of angles, composition, lighting, etc.
I encountered this often on my recent Vermont trip. I'd be at a spot with beautiful foliage, considering all the above things and where to set up - and by the time (maybe 10 minutes) I actually TOOK a shot, at least 5-10 other people had driven up, jumped out of the car, and quickly took a shot before speeding off again.
That's MY definition - and not to mean one method is superior or inferior to the other, necessarily.
Sandy r
Posted by John W. Wall on October 14, 2009 at 1:10 PM
One thing I've found is that point-n-shoot usage doesn't necessarily preclude skill or vision. I have a bunch of pix I shot with my FZ-28 that I call snapshots, in part to separate them from the stuff I shoot with my "real" camera. But part of the fun of using the point-n-shoot is the challenge inherent in the limited technology. My iconoclastic streak keeps me from thinking of snapshots as inferior. To me they are just different. If I took the shot with a Leica M9 instead of a Panasonic FZ-28, does that mean it's more artistic?
It's when you have been studying your subject for ten minutes, have just got the 4x5 in place, are still contemplating the composition, picking out a lens, immersed in your craft, and a luxury european sedan slowly drives by. The power window slowly opens halfway, the vehicle never stops moving, and only an arm appears, holding a tiny p&s. One little click, and the arm retracts within, as the vehicle races away. A wallhanger, for sure!
Posted by Eric Good on October 14, 2009 at 2:29 PM
While there is going to be some amount of overlap between the different types/classes of photography, I'd say the Wiki definition is pretty definitive. I just know it when I see it... kind of like art.
Posted by Paul Duval on October 14, 2009 at 9:24 PM
Lon,
When you say film guys I'm assuming you're refering to the format camera folks. I've seen them at work, just putting the camera up and arranging everything before even inserting the film precludes a snapshot. Film or digital the 35mm SLR camera is light enough, and tripods are pretty easy to set up that any shot taken quickly to capture a fleeting moment IMO would qualify as a "snapshot." Defining it as not artistic just because it was not a preplanned I stood there freezing my butt off for 2 hours before the clouds parted and the angels sung while I took the image is to me narrow minded. Actually unless we confess that the photo was taken with little prep, and almost thought to comp,light etc, and it still came out amazing I guess could be better defined as luck. It's the image that makes art, ( and we all know when we see it ) equipment definitely helps, format cameras offer fantastic detail and wonderful colors but not every image taken with a format camera is art and vice versa. I'm not arguing that the guy in the Mercedes or people that jump out of their car with a point shot take a shot and jump back in the car are making art, and certainly not the people that are taking photo's with their cellphones. What I'm trying to say is calling a snapshot junk or trash photography is denigrating a shot that has all of the qualities of an artistic image, despite the time taken to make it. I've missed shots, because the light that was special came and went so swiftly. I guess this subject has touched a nerve, so please forgive my passion all.
Paul,
In response to your last comment I do not see where Lon posted in this thread at all.
With regard to my own comment on "us old film guys", it was only in the context of the cost. It had nothing to do with setup time and or film verses digital.
As far as the comment Jeffrey made I cannot speak for it, but I took it completely as a tongue in cheek point of view, as apparently I think Michael did with his LOL!
It's complicated... because when you see an image, you have no idea how long they took to compose it... so an image can 'look' like a snapshot, even if it is not, and vice versa.... IMO a snapshot is defined by the appearance, which is one that looks like it was done hastily, without much care or thought in composition, focus, timing, or light. A 'snapshot' can also be done with fantastic timing to create a work of art.... there's many a street and action photographer that live for moments like that. The results are not what I would consider snapshots.
Posted by Kyle Jones on October 15, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Say, as often happens, a professional photographer carefully selects a location, sets up his gear, and waits for the perfect light. While he is waiting, a park vistor wanders by - drawn by that professional looking camera setup. He talks to the photographer for a minute then snaps a picture at the same time the photographer does.
As it turns out, they are pretty much the same shot.
So is it the difference in equipment that makes one a snapshot? The lack of planning and intent? Or since they look pretty much the same, are they both fine art?
I tend to think it is planning and intent, along with the small differences in focus, composition and sharpness. But it is an interesting thought since people looking at small prints may not be able to tell the difference between the two photos.
Posted by John W. Wall on October 15, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Snapshots taken with a Blackberry: http://www.flickr.com/photos/78386052@N00/
Posted by Paul Duval on October 15, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Paul B.
I had completely forgotten that story, I have the book the making of 40 images by Ansel Adams. But when you think of how many photos he had already taken and the knowledge in his head, all of that skill,experience and knowledge came together in a perfect moment to make that "snapshot." A point perfectly made, but who other than Ansel could have pulled it off? Steve thanks for the original thought that started this thread it certainly generated great responses, well may be with a an exception, my second I hope I don't insult Lon or anyone else.
Discussion
15 repliesMine was something you do quickly w/ out a tripod say if I was in a rush.
The main question for me is I'm not sure if I try it twice is it still a snapshot?
I looked it up and Wiki says:
A snapshot is popularly defined as a photograph that is "shot" spontaneously and quickly, most often without artistic or journalistic intent. Snapshots are commonly considered to be technically "imperfect" or amateurish--out of focus or poorly framed or composed.
More wiki
To be a bit more serious, I would think that the usage of the tripod has merit in the definition, but would never consider a wildlife photographer hand holding a large IVR lens basically to be taking snapshots. I guess for us old film shooters there are no more snapshots. Every shot has a serious price tag and as such puts some very intentional thoughts behind almost ever shot for more reasons then one.
I encountered this often on my recent Vermont trip. I'd be at a spot with beautiful foliage, considering all the above things and where to set up - and by the time (maybe 10 minutes) I actually TOOK a shot, at least 5-10 other people had driven up, jumped out of the car, and quickly took a shot before speeding off again.
That's MY definition - and not to mean one method is superior or inferior to the other, necessarily.
Sandy r
When you say film guys I'm assuming you're refering to the format camera folks. I've seen them at work, just putting the camera up and arranging everything before even inserting the film precludes a snapshot. Film or digital the 35mm SLR camera is light enough, and tripods are pretty easy to set up that any shot taken quickly to capture a fleeting moment IMO would qualify as a "snapshot." Defining it as not artistic just because it was not a preplanned I stood there freezing my butt off for 2 hours before the clouds parted and the angels sung while I took the image is to me narrow minded. Actually unless we confess that the photo was taken with little prep, and almost thought to comp,light etc, and it still came out amazing I guess could be better defined as luck. It's the image that makes art, ( and we all know when we see it ) equipment definitely helps, format cameras offer fantastic detail and wonderful colors but not every image taken with a format camera is art and vice versa. I'm not arguing that the guy in the Mercedes or people that jump out of their car with a point shot take a shot and jump back in the car are making art, and certainly not the people that are taking photo's with their cellphones. What I'm trying to say is calling a snapshot junk or trash photography is denigrating a shot that has all of the qualities of an artistic image, despite the time taken to make it. I've missed shots, because the light that was special came and went so swiftly. I guess this subject has touched a nerve, so please forgive my passion all.
In response to your last comment I do not see where Lon posted in this thread at all.
With regard to my own comment on "us old film guys", it was only in the context of the cost. It had nothing to do with setup time and or film verses digital.
As far as the comment Jeffrey made I cannot speak for it, but I took it completely as a tongue in cheek point of view, as apparently I think Michael did with his LOL!
As it turns out, they are pretty much the same shot.
So is it the difference in equipment that makes one a snapshot? The lack of planning and intent? Or since they look pretty much the same, are they both fine art?
I tend to think it is planning and intent, along with the small differences in focus, composition and sharpness. But it is an interesting thought since people looking at small prints may not be able to tell the difference between the two photos.
Moonrise Hernandez
I had completely forgotten that story, I have the book the making of 40 images by Ansel Adams. But when you think of how many photos he had already taken and the knowledge in his head, all of that skill,experience and knowledge came together in a perfect moment to make that "snapshot." A point perfectly made, but who other than Ansel could have pulled it off? Steve thanks for the original thought that started this thread it certainly generated great responses, well may be with a an exception, my second I hope I don't insult Lon or anyone else.
Sincerely,
Paul