This term got me in a lot of trouble recently, I'd like to explore it now that the dust has settled. I am guilty sometimes of saying it's no more than a snapshot. I suppose adding the 'no more' somehow gives the reader the impression that I am making a quality judgement of the image. Since nobody can see exactly what I am thinking, half the time I'm not even sure myself, let me try to give some terms my own definition. In other words what I really mean not what someone else thinks I mean. Snap shot: A completely random image made on the spur of the moment. Absolutely not planned in anyway, a true moment in time captured on film or digital media. A thing that happened in the presense of someone who happened to have a camera handy. The quality of the image depends on who has the camera in their hands more than the equipment they use, but can be effected by the equipment. Inspired snapshot: An image recorded by a person who goes to a specific place at a specific time in order to make a photograph of something at that place and time. Ie, I go to a retro fair with my cameras and film. It is my intention to make two dozen images of something at that fair. I find a 1800s wedding being held, so part of my day is spent shooting that wedding. But it is 'play it as it lays Sam'. No posing and just shooting random shots. Now I have (arguably) quality equipment, and a mediocre amount of talent, but I didn't set it up and it is sprung on me. So I hadn't planned for days what shot to make or when to do it. Portrait: Carefully planned and posed photograph. The lighting is controlled and the background and scenery chosen with care so as not to distract from the subject of the portrait. It is my guess thought I am not familier with what is happening these days, that this is the type photo that gets framed. Now this is not to say that the portrait can't be different from a typical 'old school' studio shot because it certainly can and nowadays mostly is. Scenics: I'm driving down the road and I see a really cool looking view ahead. I take my camera from the glove box and step out of the car and shoot a negative, or a couple of electrons. Get back in my car and drive away. Inspired scenic: I put my camera in the car and go looking for a nice bit of scenery to shoot. My lake shots and marina shots fall into this category. I go to a specific spot to make a shot of something there. I have no plan no angles set, nothing but a feeling that I want to shoot a shot there today. Landscape: I see a sceen that I like. I go home and I get my camera and I think no I should be there at one hour after sunrise to make the best shot. I plan out the angles and the time line. I go back and I shoot the shot I had envisioned and a dozen more. I think you get the idea. There is something between the simple shot of my grandson playing with his toys, and the studio portrait of him dressed up standing by a fern. Take the camera go to his house with shooting a picture in mind and look for him to so something image worthy. Does a 5k camera make a difference? sure. Does knowing how to light a subject make a difference? You bet you butt it does. But you are still there just shooting what you see. Now if you take the child out to a park and set him up to shoot, then it rises past me shooting pictures of my grandson on the floor of his living room. The photographer chooses where to place the child in more or less what possition and he is the center of the photograph not his toys all around him, then it rises to the level of portrait even if it isn't in a studio setting. I am probably wrong as I usually am, but I thought maybe someone might get a subtle idea of what the difference is: or not. So what do you think?