The difference between a photo and a snapshot?

[kcvpr]

A couple months ago I took a photography course at my local community college. During one of the lectures the topic of taking photos versus snapshots was discussed. Ever since then I have been creatively disturbed and can't come up with/ or have a difficult time coming up with ideas for my photos.

I find myself hesitating to take photos of sunsets and widely photographed landmarks or similar subject matter, because I feel like its too cliche or something like that. I can't figure out how to get past that...

I was hoping you guys had some ideas or experience with this issue. What makes a picture a photo and not a snap shot?

 

[robbins.photo]

A couple months ago I took a photography course at my local community college. During one of the lectures the topic of taking photos versus snapshots was discussed. Ever since then I have been creatively disturbed and can't come up with/ or have a difficult time coming up with ideas for my photos.

I find myself hesitating to take photos of sunsets and widely photographed landmarks or similar subject matter, because I feel like its too cliche or something like that. I can't figure out how to get past that...

I was hoping you guys had some ideas or experience with this issue. What makes a picture a photo and not a snap shot?

Forget about cliche or what's been done. Go out, look at the world and ask yourself is this a moment I'd like to remember? Is this a moment I think others would like to witness? If so, then you've got a good photograph.

The difference between a snapshot and a good photograph is usually a matter of composition, nothing more.

 

[Fred von den Berg]

Chess and draughts. Lots of similarities but worlds apart. Both are fun, or should be.

 

[Crashbox]

First, forget about lectures and concepts. Shoot something. Channel your inner Elmer Fudd and get yourself out there to shoot something pronto. You make lousy photos 100% of the time when you're letting what you been told overcome what you know. Be true to you and get the shot and let the "experts" remain experts who give lectures rather than something like making photos. (Folks forget that. If the lecturer was the best of the best of the best in photography, why isn't he on location in Borneo or something? Why's he giving lectures to supplement his income? Just a thought.)

To me, a snapshot is when you're not thinking about anything but documentation. Little Ralphie just ate a green crayon, shoot it now. The look on his face says he'll never do it again, so you need to get it captured.

A photograph is when you see a tree or a pair of trees with a sunset behind them and decide to move four feet to your left and back one step so one tree is on each side of the shot to frame it. Or when you position the bridge of little Ralphie's nose on the left upper third line because he's got half the crayon in his left hand which is then more toward the middle of the frame. Focus on the bridge of his nose and recompose.

In my mind, if I'm thinking composition and aesthetic rules, it's a photograph. If I just want to get it on "film" or get a view of it for later viewing, that's a snap.

 

[480sparky]

You saw something, you raised the camera to your eye, you zoomed in and out until the subject filled the viewfinder, and you pressed the shutter button. You then chimp the image on the monitor to make sure you 'got it'.

That is a snapshot............ merely a visual record and proof you were there.



You saw something interesting. You study it. You make choices as to shutter speed, aperture, focus point, white balance, focal length, ISO etc. You move around, looking for angles, studying backgrounds, the play of light. You make conscious decisions based on your interpretation of the subject matter before you. How did you want it to be recorded? What is your 'vision' of the subject? What do you want the final image to say to the viewer? Is your choices appropriate for that 'vision' of the subject? Is the light 'right' now, or will it be better to wait until it changes?

That is not only a photo, but art.

 

[Vtec44]

IMHO, if you simply just catch what's there then it's a snap shot. If you see what's there but show the viewer your own unique interpretation of what's there (lighting, mood, angle, framing composition, colors, etc) then you've created something special. Typically the lighting, framing, composition, and angle are the easiest to separate between a snap shot and a photograph. You can tell if a person has put in a lot of thoughts when taking this photo.

 

[kcvpr]

Thanks for the thoughts guys, I appreciate it! I guess I have been taking "photos" mostly all along, just not getting very many keepers.

My other problem is figuring out what exactly it is that makes a photo good or not... I don't know how to explain it, something along the lines of not knowing how to critique my own photos. Like being able to tell if what I am shooting needs some fill light. Or when I'm editing, finding what needs to be burned/dodged or if my white balance is off or not.

 

[SquarePeg]

No need to worry if you aren't at a point yet where you can critique your own photos, there's plenty of people here who will happily do it for you! (and I mean that in the most non snarky way). From that feedback and from reading c&c posts of other's photos you'll soon be comfortable critiquing your own.

 

[otherprof]

IMHO, if you simply just catch what's there then it's a snap shot. If you see what's there but show the viewer your own unique interpretation of what's there (lighting, mood, angle, framing composition, colors, etc) then you've created something special. Typically the lighting, framing, composition, and angle are the easiest to separate between a snap shot and a photograph. You can tell if a person has put in a lot of thoughts when taking this photo.

I'm not sure that the amount of thought behind the photo determines whether it achieves the level of "photograph." Sometimes the photographer's knowledge, skills and superior or unusual equipment are necessary to solve a problem and achieve a certain result. How I filter for the light in this industrial site? How do I get rid of that grreen cast? How do I keep detail in the shadows and the highlights? But sometimes, as in street photography, there is a minimum of preparation - maybe only setting the camera to "auto," or setting auto exposure compensation bracketing, and then looking for that perfect 1/250 of a second, or the "decisive moment." I spend a lot more time looking at the images in my computer than taking the pictures, This iand I generally only use iPhoto and don't have all the possibilities that Photoshop users have. (This is not a less is more statement. Ansel Adams, as many people on this site know, said we don't take pictures; we make them.) So I don't think the answer to the snapshot/photograph question comes down to the amount of thought that went into taking the picture. I do know some of my shots are snapshots when I take them - I just want to remember the person or the scene, and probably would not want to share the image if I were presenting myself as a photographer.. With other shots, I just have the feeling they might turn out to be photographs. I know I have trouble with images presented as photographs in galleries and museums, and praised for their snapshot-like quality. I can'lt give a sharp definition of snapshot (originally just a quick shot, not posed) to distinguish it from a photograph, but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference. And I certainly don't want to use "photograph" as a laudatory term, because I want to be able to talk about great photographs, bad photographs, pretty good photographs, etc. Sorry I've gone on so long. Alternative, short answer: photographs are art and snapshots aren't, and art is not necessarily worth looking at.

 

[Vtec44]

I'm not sure that the amount of thought behind the photo determines whether it achieves the level of "photograph." Sometimes the photographer's knowledge, skills and superior or unusual equipment are necessary to solve a problem and achieve a certain result.

Well to be "thoughtful" you have to move beyond the technical aspect of photography to a point where you don't even think about it anymore, and it becomes second nature. At that point, you have the freedom to create and tell stories, instead of fumble over settings, and be thoughtful about your shots.

 

[otherprof]

I'm not sure that the amount of thought behind the photo determines whether it achieves the level of "photograph." Sometimes the photographer's knowledge, skills and superior or unusual equipment are necessary to solve a problem and achieve a certain result.

Well to be "thoughtful" you have to move beyond the technical aspect of photography to a point where you don't even think about it anymore, and it becomes second nature. At that point, you have the freedom to create and tell stories instead of fumble over settings and be thoughtful about your shots.

Very nicely stated! You remind me of the concept of the Zen of . . . driving, e.g. For someone learning to drive, everything requires thought, but a good driver drives mostly without thought. (I don't mean she/he drives distracted.) It is the same with playing an instrument. If you have to think about the fingering, embouchure, etc. you are not yet a musician. There is an old Zen parable about an artist who was asked by a potentate to produce an ink painting of a rooster. After six months, no painting had been delivered. The potentate visited the painter to complain about the delay. When the painter was chastised for not producing the painting, he picked up a brush, dipped it in ink, and produced a magnificent image of a rooster. The potentate asked what had delayed him for six months. In reply, the painter opened a cabinet and showed thousands of paintings of roosters. Then he explained, "i was practicing." Hence the saying about the first ten thousand photos being your worst. By the way, I learned about the Zen of Driving from an essay by the British Zen master, Christmas Humphries.

 

[cherylynne1]

The difference between a snapshot and a photo? Easy! Just add a watermark!


In all seriousness, though, the definition I learned was that a snapshot records information and a photo tells a story. For instance, the purpose of a mug shot is to record a person's eye color, hair color, and facial features. A portrait's purpose, on the other hand, is to capture an emotion and make you feel like you're in the presence of that person. Portraits of a couple usually try to show that they're in love, portraits of CEOs try to show strength, etc. It requires a great deal of technical knowledge to be able to achieve this, but it needs to start with a story.

 

[chuasam]

The difference is that snobs like to call rubbish photos snapshots *LOL*
Ok seriously, it's about the thought process behind the image.

 

[rlemert]

Several of the responses here boil down to "if you think about it, it's a photograph; if you just shoot it, it's a snapshot."

One logical conclusion that can be drawn from this is that as one becomes more proficient at photography, he or she is more likely to take snapshots than photographs. The decisions he or she is making have, after all, become fairly automatic.

I think we need a definition that distinguishes between 'snapshot' and 'photograph' that takes the photographer out of the equation. I don't have a good idea what the definition would be, however.

 

[otherprof]

The difference between a snapshot and a photo? Easy! Just add a watermark!


In all seriousness, though, the definition I learned was that a snapshot records information and a photo tells a story. For instance, the purpose of a mug shot is to record a person's eye color, hair color, and facial features. A portrait's purpose, on the other hand, is to capture an emotion and make you feel like you're in the presence of that person. Portraits of a couple usually try to show that they're in love, portraits of CEOs try to show strength, etc. It requires a great deal of technical knowledge to be able to achieve this, but it needs to start with a story.

I think your first comment may have more than a grain of truth in it, funny as it is. I think it was the Philosopher Arthure Danto who wrote that if it has a title, even "Untitled,", or if it displayed in an artworld context, like a museum or gallery, it is art. But that doesn't mean it is worth looking at. In other words, it is the connection with the rest of the world, not some interna property, that distinguishes art from non-art, and, I guess, snapshots from photographs. That seems to work with your examples.