You always hear things like "Looks like a snapshot" when reading critiques. With all the recent threads about the shrinking talent pool of photographers, I've gone back and taken an honest look at everything I've shot over the past couple of years. This has been a real learning experience for me because it has forced me to honestly access my work. Pictures I thought were really awesome two years ago don't seem so awesome now. I know thats a good thing but it also raises some questions for me. When are snapshots ok? Every picture can't be epic. Sometimes you just want to capture a moment or preserve something that held some sort of importance at that point in time. My family being a perfect example. I have tons of pictures of my kids and other people who are important to me. Some are really good and some are just quick shots that preserve a memory for my family and I. Pictures that we can look at in 20 years and continue to enjoy. I would never question or seek approval for these types of shots because they mean something to me, but they really seem to strike a nerve with some people and they are cast off as "just a snapshot". I'm by no means complaining about any critique I've ever been given so please don't take this the wrong way. I honestly don't ever remember any of the few pictures I've posted being called snapshots and I know that a huge percentage of what I shoot are exactly that, but I do see the term quite a bit. I guess my question is simply when are these types of shots acceptable? Do people just not like to see them presented for critique?