Snapshots and Universality

[amolitor]

Whenever I see the word "snapshot" busted out as a pejorative, my hackles go up. Even though I do it from time to time.

So, here's some definitions. If you're itching to disagree with me, this part is probably your best bet:

There's a property of a photograph which I will call universality which is simply the degree to which it appeals to and is evocative for a wide range of people. None of us will have any difficulty thinking up photographs with a lot of universality. I am going to define a snapshot as a photograph with a very low degree of universality. So, a snapshot is just a picture that is meaningless and uninteresting to "most people" or even "almost everyone". Of course a snapshot means something to whoever took it, it's a record of that time I was at that place, or my latte in that one cafe, or whatever. It's a snapshot because nobody else much cares.

Ok, so let's think about the kind of photograph that a lot of people on TPF hold up as a sort of gold standard, the professional portrait. We can lump in professional wedding photos, engagement shoots, and so on.

These things are all snapshots too. When you see a picture of 5 young men in champagne tuxedos, one of the men invariably barefoot, arms over one another's shouldersm all standing on the railroad tracks, acting like idiots, what do you think? You think "checkbox pseudo-artsy photograph of some groom's party from some wedding" If you're a TPF regular, you will probably instinctively evaluate a dozen criteria, to see how well it matches the generally accepted standard of how this photograph is made. What you do NOT do is say 'wow, I want that on my wall' or 'man, I gotta re-evaluate my life' or anything like that. Neither do you get the sense that you know these men, you get no sense of who they are or what they are like. You don't know those goombas and most of the time you're glad you don't know those guys. You don't care about those guys one iota more after seeing this image than you did before. In other words, the image has very low universality.

Still, these photographs are all fine stuff. These are the photographs people are paying for, and this class of professionals delivers them. There is no shame in this, it is a worthy profession. The point is that what the customer wants is snapshots. They don't give a fig about universality. They're not even, really, going to look at these pictures. The pictures are a talisman which serves to remind them of the day, that time, that event.

The deal with this sort of professional work isn't that it's not a snapshot, the deal is that it's a very flattering snapshot if it's done well. It hits certain tropes and standards, so everyone who looks at it knows that we paid for a professional, and it makes us look hella good if I do say so myself, and it evokes memories very well, for us. The fact that it is, to everyone else on the world, a meaningless picture of some idiots is irrelevant.

 

[o hey tyler]

Cool story bro.

 

[amolitor]

Cool story bro.

Wow, you're not the last person I would have figured for agreeing, but you were pretty down the list! Thanks!

 

[Benco]

To paraphrase that a wee bit you're saying that a snapshot isn't neccessarily a bad photograph right?

 

[o hey tyler]

Wow, you're not the last person I would have figured for agreeing, but you were pretty down the list! Thanks!

I didn't agree. Actually, I didn't even read your post.

Should have put tl;dr, my bad.

 

[amolitor]

I actually avoided the good/bad distinctions quite carefully and deliberately throughout. I have my own ideas about what's good and bad, but that's a different discussion.

 

[amolitor]

I didn't agree. Actually, I didn't even read your post.

Should have put tl;dr, my bad.

Don't worry, I knew that. I should have put 'tyler, this is sarcasm!!!!1!!1!!!' in my post, my bad.

 

[Benco]

In the context of 'snapshot' being used as a perjorative term then.

 

[Designer]

To paraphrase that a wee bit you're saying that a snapshot isn't neccessarily a bad photograph right?

You mean he could have said that in one short phrase?

 

[Rick58]

I like that :thumbup:

I just feel it's a shame the word "snapshot" has gotten such a black eye on here. Unless you are that glamour or wedding photgrapher, no one wants to take the time to help the everyday "snapshooter" improve. Example: If I buy my first DSLR to record, say aircraft. I may not be interested in the "artsy" pattern the rivets make, but exposure, DOF, background clutter, angle of the shot (aka comp) are all important to me to make a better then average snapshot. The problem is, as soon as I post that aircraft for C&C, I'm told to move in and find that rivet pattern.

I enjoy taking everyday snapshots of my hobbies, but posting them here for comment is a waste of time. Every shutter click doesn't have to be a wall hanger.

 

[rexbobcat]

I think that the word snapshot in the way that it is used on this site connotes a lack of deliberation or active photographic "planning." Even photojournalists who photograph in the moment have to be aware of light, dark, composition etc...

So when someone says that a photograph looks like a snapshot they're basically saying that the photograph looks hurried, lacking any kind of creative or technical thinking on the part of the photographer. It's used as...I don't know if this is technically the right word...a homonym for "lacking technical and creative depth." At least that's how I see it. If everyone understands what someone is getting at when they make a statement in a certain context, I don't understand why it matters if the word chosen is exactly proper or not.

Symantics is a nasty business where nobody wins and everyone ends up arguing over political correctness.

Most of the time I'm too lazy to care about hurting feelings over silly little discrepancies like this. lol

 

[Designer]

Frankly, I have not seen very many photographs of engagements or weddings of the type that you have included in your example that I really admire.

Are they technically good? Sometimes.

Are they compositionally good? Occasionally.

Are they cliche? Almost always.

Are they artistic? Very seldom.

You have nailed the concept of meaningless but universal snapshots.

 

[Designer]

It's used as...I don't know if this is technically the right word...a homonym for "lacking technical and creative depth."

I think the descriptor would be "synonym". I agree completely with your definition.

 

[amolitor]

Well, I think on TPF "snapshot" is used in a lot of ways, sometimes it just means "I don't like it".

I agree, rexbobcat, that generally what is meant is that the photograph appears to be hurried and carelessly made, and more generally "it looks like those pictures that the people who just got a camera make" which is perfectly fine and good. I got no problem with that notion. What I am trying to get it is: what IS it about those pictures that the newbs make that makes them look that way?

I think the phrase "lacking in technical and creative depth" is pretty sound. The difference between the professional portrait and the snapshot then is that the first one has technical depth.

Which is, I think, a fair characterization. Professionals (of this sort -- we're leaving out the fashion guys, the art guys, the photojournalists, etc etc) have a lot of technical skills and techniques at their disposal which make their "snapshots" look flattering. Sharp images, pleasing poses, a dab of photoshop, some flattering light and we have a photograph the client will like. The creative depth is.. not substantial, generally. The technical depth is, and that's what the customer is paying for.

 

[rexbobcat]

I think the descriptor would be "synonym". I agree completely with your definition.

Ah yeah, I got 'em mixed up. Lol