Snapshots and Universality

[manaheim]

So you're trying to recharacterize snapshots as not a bad thing, necessarily?

 

[runnah]

I thinks its just another label to put down those deemed not worthy by the elitists of any group.

 

[amolitor]

Well.

I've been thinking about it on and off for quite a while, and I've not been able to come up with a better way to describe a "snapshot" than what I wrote. At any rate, not a way that I find personally more satisfying. If we just say 'technically shoddy photograph' for instance, then we have to lump a lot of iconic photojournalism in to "snapshot" . If we say 'of a stupid subject' then there's a lot of pretty powerful art becomes 'a snapshot'. The definition that best satisfies ME is this business of universality. Then we get to see what else gets lumped in under the head of 'snapshot' -- and there's always gonna be something -- and we find to our surprise that professional wedding photographs wind up there.

You can, and most people probably do, just say that they know a snapshot when they see it. Which has its own problems.

I am more in to definitions than most people, to be sure.

I think universality is a desirable quality in a photograph? I'm being cagey about "good" or "bad" for several reasons, not the least of which is that I am currently wrestling with whether good and bad are useful and meaningful words to describe photographs.

 

[paigew]

I shoot snapshots. Some people may call it 'lifestyle photography'. But I don't mind calling my work snapshots, its obvious my images are "technically sound and done with creative intent". I think that is a great definition.

I am not ashamed of my love for snapshot-ography. Lets start a revolution Amolitor :hippie:

 

[runnah]

You touched on it Andy. Some of the most iconic photos have been snapshots. Hastily taken photos with no concern of technical or artistic merit. The only purpose was to freeze a moment forever. I know people who only have one snapshot of a parent/grandparent and it is the most valuable photo in the world to them.

so yes I can put on my beret and hold my nose high in the air and disregard every photo that isn't a mind altering expression of art, but I won't because I cannot assign the importance of a photo to the taker.

 

[Rick58]

"Hastily taken photos with no concern of technical or artistic merit. The only purpose was to freeze a moment forever."

Like every combat photographer....EVER

 

[paigew]

... Some of the most iconic photos have been snapshots. Hastily taken photos with no concern of technical or artistic merit....

This is the whole point. Who says a snapshot has to be "hastily taken with no concern of technical or artistic merit"?

 

[Rick58]

... Some of the most iconic photos have been snapshots. Hastily taken photos with no concern of technical or artistic merit....

This is the whole point. Who says a snapshot has to be "hastily taken with no concern of technical or artistic merit"?

Thank you! A snapshot doesn't have to come from grandma's 1973 Kodak Instamatic

 

[pixmedic]

the real issue isn't even about the labels. yes, the term "snapshot" has taken on a somewhat derogatory meaning, but in the end, the REAL problem is the critique GIVEN to those photos. when the level of critique stops at "this looks like a snapshot" with no real explanation as to any technical or artistic issues the photo might have, then the very word "snapshot" by itself starts to be taken to mean "bad photo".

I think there is another aspect of critique difficulty where we are grading "in the moment" photos the same way we would grade staged studio portraits. some people would call this "snapshots" -vs- "photographs", but I dont think that is a fair assessment. in truth, I am just as guilty of this as the next person, but I am starting to believe that this distinction we have made by labeling certain pictures as "snapshots" has handicapped our ability to give proper critique and help the photographer improve.

For me, candid photos are more difficult to critique harshly because they often have to be captured fast, with no time to set up anything, and little time to make any camera adjustments. does it give them a free pass to awesomeville? not really, but I think we would see better critique, and more improvement, if we just looked at each picture for what it is, and not worry about figuring out whether it is a "snapshot" or a "photograph". not all pictures are equal...but they are all pictures none the less.

Sorry if this is totally outside of what you were talking about Amolitor. didnt mean to hijack your thread if im totally off what you were thinking.

 

[Benco]

Well I don't do vague, convoluted definitions that comdemn as newbie on the one hand and condone as professionalism on the other.

To my mind a snapshot is a photo taken on the fly of a fleeting subject: the subject presents itself and you're ready for it, you've got your camera setup ready for the quick draw, you compose, fine tune parameters, focus, shoot. You do it fast because the subject is beyond your control, if you fart around with artistic musings, lighting possibilites, the universality of the potential image and so on you've missed it and it's gone forever. There's an adrenaline rush with this sort of thing, out there before your eyes is fleeting beauty and you've got only seconds to capture it, will you? wont you? it's a rush.

A photo of the groom & pals at a wedding by the wedding photographer? not a snapshot, you're in control of every element of that photograph and you have all the time in the world to set it up, sure it may not have any high brow artistic merit but it isn't a snapshot.

 

[manaheim]

Well.

I've been thinking about it on and off for quite a while, and I've not been able to come up with a better way to describe a "snapshot" than what I wrote. At any rate, not a way that I find personally more satisfying. If we just say 'technically shoddy photograph' for instance, then we have to lump a lot of iconic photojournalism in to "snapshot" . If we say 'of a stupid subject' then there's a lot of pretty powerful art becomes 'a snapshot'. The definition that best satisfies ME is this business of universality. Then we get to see what else gets lumped in under the head of 'snapshot' -- and there's always gonna be something -- and we find to our surprise that professional wedding photographs wind up there.

You can, and most people probably do, just say that they know a snapshot when they see it. Which has its own problems.

I am more in to definitions than most people, to be sure.

I think universality is a desirable quality in a photograph? I'm being cagey about "good" or "bad" for several reasons, not the least of which is that I am currently wrestling with whether good and bad are useful and meaningful words to describe photographs.

I dunno. I guess your concept of universality is fine enough, but the word choice seems off because it implies something other than what it appears you are trying to characterize.

"universality" sounds like "it's something so common that no one is moved by it", but that seems to leave off issues of technical execution or "quality". And while you may find certain well executed pictures cliche and totally expected, I think you would find very few photographers that would call them "snapshots".

You also seem to want to classify good portraits as "snapshots", and while I take your point, it's not like your definition of them as such is going to change the way people refer to these.

Basically it's sorta pointless because regardless of whether the idea has merit, there's no way you'll be able to alter the tide.

 

[paigew]

A snapshot is a photo of normal everyday life. No reason anyone would want to hang that photo on their wall; unless they are personally connected to the subject. Shouldn't the goal of every photographer be, to document life in a compelling way? We should know the basics of composition, how to use natural light, and we should learn to wait and observe our subjects, taking time to compose each shot using interesting angles that helps to tell the story we are viewing. Be it a wedding, a chef preparing a meal, or your kid playing Legos. They are all snapshots. But they can be done in a memorable way if you know how to work with what you have. A photographers ability to produce a beautiful image out of a not so perfect circumstance is what makes them great...at least imo.

 

[Designer]

I've hung some snapshots on my wall. I just liked them.

 

[runnah]

I've hung some snapshots on my wall. I just liked them.

Blasphemy!

 

[manaheim]

A snapshot is a photo of normal everyday life. No reason anyone would want to hang that photo on their wall; unless they are personally connected to the subject. Shouldn't the goal of every photographer be, to document life in a compelling way? We should know the basics of composition, how to use natural light, and we should learn to wait and observe our subjects, taking time to compose each shot using interesting angles that helps to tell the story we are viewing. Be it a wedding, a chef preparing a meal, or your kid playing Legos. They are all snapshots. But they can be done in a memorable way if you know how to work with what you have. A photographers ability to produce a beautiful image out of a not so perfect circumstance is what makes them great...at least imo.

I don't think that works either. I have several such shots that range from (literally) award winning pictures to crappy shots of my kids.