Snapshot?

[manaheim]

IMO...

People aren't saying if you run around taking pictures of your kids and your family that your pictures suck.

People aren't saying that the pictures you took at your last labor day party suck because they were informal.

People are just saying "Hey! You could have made those shots better by doing X, Y and Z... try it next time to get less of a 'snapshotty' picture."

This -is- a photography forum, so people here are trying to get better and help others to get better. So, if you post a pic and you cut off your aunt Mabel's head, or put little Johnny dead center in the picture and his head only takes up 1/50th of the frame... yeah, people are gonna suggest some alternatives.

The term "snapshotty" is probably a bit of a misnomer, but it has probably come from people like my grandmother who lines up every person in the world who comes to her house in front of her hideous living room drapes (btw, extremely bright outside and dark inside) and then takes a flash picture of them... up way too close, and with their heads dead center in the frame. Pictures look horrid, but they do remind us that Uncle Carmine, Aunt Rose and Uncle Clem came to visit last month. A bad thing? No. But a bit of work on the composition might have yielded a much nicer picture and ALSO captured the memory.



(and yes, those are really the names of some of my family members)

 

[MarcusM]

A snapshot is a word used here often to put down or dismiss other's photos. Some like to use the word a lot, maybe it makes them feel like they take real "photographs".

Oh, and by the way, a "snapshot" is still a photograph.

 

[LaFoto]

Marcus, the use of the word "snapshot" is not limited to TPF, people use the term all over, only here they would say "Schnappschuss", but that is very much the same .

It is a photo "planned" in that manner that manaheim is describing so nicely - done by a person who knows how to "click", but has been told little else about all those things that can help to make even a quickly taken, informal picture better than the fast rising the camera and "clicking" could ever do, without observation of how far things need to be away for the camera at least so the camera has a fair chance to focus on them, not observing that in-camera flash will brightly light up anything that's close, but lose its power within 2 metres of distance (bright white, flat, blurred grinning face against almost black background), not observing people's facial expression (see my example from above, if it hadn't been for this thread, I'd have saved those people of their faces that everyone has while eating, I think to "freeze" faces of eating people is downright mean to them, they will always look bad!) etc.

What I mean to say is that there can be a difference between having to be very quick in one's taking a photo (sports photography, dance photography, performances of any kind, maybe also photos of one's little children at home to capture their interactions or body language or facial expression of THAT ONE moment!) and the all uninformed "snapping" of a photo which then will combine a good many of those "mistakes" I named.

When you have taken a quick photo (quick as in "no time to set up tripod, put the flash to the camera, fasten the camera on tripod, carefully choose your frame), but have taken it with some (automated) background knowledge of photography ("rules"? "conventions" of what makes an image more attractive), that photo will not be characterised as "snapshot".

Snapshots, I feel, are those that Auntie Rose and Uncle Clem will look at 2 years later and say "Remember, that was when we were at manaheim's granny's house". But neither they nor anyone else will say "Hey, this is a nice photo!"

Snapshots serve a purpose, too, of course, for they conserve memories.
But they won't provoke the feeling (in the viewer) of "Ooooo, I like this photo!" (I think).

 

[christopher walrath]

I think kelly answered well. A snapshot is a quick shot that holds attraction to the photographer due to familiarity or an associative memory. A photograph shows some thought going into it and an attempt to make someone else respond to it.

 

[reg]

I don't look at it as snapshots and photographs, I simply look at it as pleasing photos and poor ones. Snapshots can be either.

 

[Joves]

I dont see there being much of a diffrence either, being photos or snapshots. THey either have some good content or they dont. All that really matters is if you like them or, not.

 

[rufus5150]

I've always seen a snapshot as a shot taken of something significant to the shooter without great attention paid to the artistic merit (artistic worthiness to someone other than the shooter without an explanation) and with only minimal mind toward the technical aspects of the photo. This is not to say that a snapshot can't be perfectly exposed, framed, and the subject be interesting, the post processing being spot-on, and the shot turn into an incredible image.

A snapshot, to me, is really rooted behind the intent of a photo. When the technical aspects are lacking an the subject as shot is not interesting to folks foreign to the shooter, it's easy to call something a 'snapshot' or 'snap-shottish'.

I have occasionally read it as a critique here and thought it coming from a 'holier than thou' perspective, but most of the time I think it's shorthand used in lieu of enumerating the problems with a photo. It doesn't always help the person, especially if they are a newbie, but it's a succinct review of a photo. It is an effective tool for knocking off the 'I just bought a DSLR a few days ago, here's a few blurry snapshots, am I ready to go pro?' newbies (though I don't see many here, they're rampant on other forums).

 

[ive]

so a question I have after reading post about this topic(sorry for hijacking of sorts)
is ...Then can a picture of a family member never be anything more then a snap shot. Or of a beloved pet? I see one person posted a picture of a LO(little one) in shadows..

 

[reg]

Very little is ever always or never, ive.

 

[manaheim]

so a question I have after reading post about this topic(sorry for hijacking of sorts)
is ...Then can a picture of a family member never be anything more then a snap shot. Or of a beloved pet? I see one person posted a picture of a LO(little one) in shadows..

Well, here are two pictures of my youngest daughter... both are clearly pictures of a family member, but I think they are actually pretty well assembled and I put some reasonable care into taking them and giving them merit. I don't think they are snapshotty, but you tell me what you think...

1. == Grace Tongue ==

2. == Grace Outside ==

 

[Battou]

A snapshot is the form of photography which not only is one of the most maligned but also is the foundation of modern photography.

Yes boys and girls I said "foundation of modern photography"! For every one of the "Artsy' types and wanna be pros, there are ten thousand moms and pops willing to spend on a camera to take -you guessed it- snapshots. The next time you look down your noses at a "snapshot" look down at your camera and wonder what you would be using if the snapshooters of the world hadn't funded the research and payed the wages of the camera makers of the world.

By the By, bad photography is just bad and has nothing to do with snapshots. If you see poor craftsmanship call it for what it is.

The foundation of Photography yes, but youe reasons are off by a bit. What you have there if the cracks in the foundation...IMO. The foundation of photography and how it relates to snapshots is based largely in journalism (most notably in sports) and Wildlife. Two of the biggest base branches of photography revolve arond the ability to pick up a camera and get the shot in an instant.

The other base categories in photography people, landscapes and product have considerably less relyance on the ability to get the image at the drop of a dime. When kids get to a certin age one can tell them to stop for a picture, I really don't see that mountain running off the moment you hit the shutter and...unless you are trying to sell that doggie in the window most product work is stationary as well.

THIS - I think - is a snapshot, and the world better be saved from photos of the kind (sorry, Alex, Sky and Hertz)!

:lmao: Hertz looks as if the the Pizza is gonna bite back...:lmao:

 

[LaFoto]

:lmao: Hertz looks as if the the Pizza is gonna bite back...:lmao:

When they'd had this same pizza for one whole week it did begin to do just that! :shock: ale:

 

[Chewbecca]

So...I guess what a snapshot is or isn't, means or doesn't mean, is totally subjective.

I should have figured.:lmao:

Thanks to all who replied and helped "define" it for me.:mrgreen:

 

[asfixiate]

A snapshot is a turn camera on and take a picture. Nothing deliberate(I'm sure great photographs were accidental snapshots). Now there could be really deliberate snapshots. Its really when you're not really caring about the lighting, composition, etc its a snapshot.

here is the issue with the debate. Photographers ammy and pro have been known to create the appearance of snapshots in their work

Another thing I think is depending on how you describe a photo it could be deemed snapshot or not.

 

[ive]

Well, here are two pictures of my youngest daughter... both are clearly pictures of a family member, but I think they are actually pretty well assembled and I put some reasonable care into taking them and giving them merit. I don't think they are snapshotty, but you tell me what you think...

1. == Grace Tongue ==


2. == Grace Outside ==

I thought they are cute. They being your Lo's. As for snapshotty or not beats me . I'm more for if its a good picture and you can enjoy the picture then its a photography. If you see to much blur or not enough time to get a nice clean crisp picture then its a snapshot. Then again, I'm more of a person that likes pictures not posed. Life isn't perfect so why should pictures have people or things looking right at the camera always?