What is a Snapshot?

In the photographic challenges issued by Asher, he says "The images cannot be snapshots", which leads me to ask the question.

Here's a first shot at a definition.

A snapshot is a photograph taken on the spur of the moment, with no forethought or planning on the part of the photographer.

A subsiduary question arises from Asher's statement, which is "Do snapshots therefore have little photographic worth?"

Stuart

StuartRae said:

In the photographic challenges issued by Asher, he says "The images cannot be snapshots", which leads me to ask the question.

Here's a first shot at a definition.

A snapshot is a photograph taken on the spur of the moment, with no forethought or planning on the part of the photographer.

Click to expand...

I suspect "snapshot" and "fine art print" are two ends of a continuous spectrum, i.e., there is no clear boundary between a snapshot and a fine art print. And no definition will be able to clearly distinguish between the two, i.e., we're really trying to answer, "What is art?" by defining what isn't art. Attempting a definition is, nevertheless, a worthwhile discussion. I've seen words like "postcard," "photograph," "fine art print," etc., used to label some regions, but they're not used with a consistent, widely accepted definition.

Under your proposed definition any amount of planning, e.g., shifting the camera a bit to improve the composition, means a photograph is not a snapshot? And a photograph of a posing individual or group is never a snapshot since posing requires actions based on forethought and planning?

How about this?

Snapshot: an image presented as captured, without any editing of any kind.

By this definition even resizing to fit the print's dimensions elevates the image to the next level, since resizing is an editing action. Unfortunately I don't know what label to attach to that next level.

Of course, editing a snapshot can result in fine art, e.g., see M. Reichmann's "From Snapshot to Fine Art."

A subsiduary question arises from Asher's statement, which is "Do snapshots therefore have little photographic worth?"

Stuart

Click to expand...

"Worth" is a judgement call. (Just ask a grandmother how much a snapshot of the grandchild is worth.) A large part of what this site is about is how to achieve fine art, sometimes starting with a "snapshot." For members here, snapshots have worth at least as a learning and evaluation tool.

I read Asher's words as a request for us to carefully consider the quality of the images we post, and limit our posted images to only our best, or images that could be among our best with a bit of help.

Bob

What is a Snapshot?

Click to expand...

At least for now, I agree with Rob about the notion of it being a spectrum from "snapshot" to "fine art". I think of the "snapshot – fine art" spectrum as a matter of how carefully the picture is previsualized and composed toward successful expression and communication.

Do snapshots therefore have little photographic worth?

Click to expand...

There are many possible kinds of worth that a photograph may have, from diagnostic, to documentary, to commercial, to artistic, and so on. I would not say that snapshots have little photographic worth, but I would say that they tend to have little artistic worth. I think this forum tends to put some emphasis on the artistic aspects of photography, and I think this is rightly so. As I said at the conclusion of my article Artful Composition (currently being rewritten and expanded):

Not every picture achieves these lofty ideals of artful composition, nor should every picture be expected to. Sometimes the picture-taking circumstances just don’t allow for it. Other times, it is simply not necessary. However, one need not be snobbish to see that any artless picture would be bettered by more artful composition, or--worded conversely--any picture will be lesser to the degree that it is artless. The point isn’t to exclude nor demean the creations which don’t make the grade as true art, but to help readers always instil what elements of art they can, to elevate all of their work.

Click to expand...

Mike

I don't see why 'snapshots' shouldn't be submitted if they were simply 'not planned' or captured without thought. Many documentary and candid photos are shot this way and often carry a lot of meaning, expression etc, even if the composition isn't great.

I would therefore hazard a guess that Asher means 'snapshot' to be carelessly captured and without a subject of interest and lacking in quality regarding exposure, focus etc.

How about the pragmatic perspective [anybody notice that visual arts and philosophy share a lot of vocab?]:

I don't care - if it grabs it's alright with me.

Or:

We recognise it when we see it.

The trouble with definitions based upon qualitative criteria - and particularly the notion of an inheren hierarchical quality - is that they don't work. And at the boundaries they get even more problematic than quantitative or empirical definitions. Just because it is bad does not necessarily mean that it does not belong to a specific genre.

Which brings me to the point why 'snapshot' ans 'snapshot' are two different things: the first is a genre, the second a derogatory term for unsubstantial holiday photography. The genre has a lot to do with getting close, knowing your subject, being on the 'qui vive' as we in Hamburg say [left over from Napoleon's tyranny] - editorial and portrait photography are often snapshot.

Holiday photography is about superficial memories not personal views of universals, hence many serious amateurs [and curiously even a few pros] despise this snapshooting.

Asher


For brevity, send in one's best. If the shot has potential. Then work on it and show the "before" and "after" and ask for suggestions. We want to encourage, not intimidate.

This isn't a snob club, neither is it trivial!

We're all on a path to the most wonderful images.

Everyone has to show judgment. We are on an arc from vision to the technically and esthetically stunning print. We can only ask for images you are proud of, that you might show to friends at at a local camera club (at the least) or perhaps, i(n the extreme), submit for a competition .

We are not looking for scores of thoughtless images taken and processed without your brain (behind the camera) and with no attempts to get rid of (obvious and easily) correctible issues.

This is not a test of perfections.

If we were all there, then we would only need an agent (and white gloves in case our 2006 Continental Flying Spur Bentley, 2006s ran out of gas and the chauffeur was off the day)!

So post! Don't hold back, but choose.

Good luck!

Asher


Punctuation and reversed typing corrected!

I am very skeptical of definitions, especially those with a quality judgement concealed in them. But I like an idea in Asher's post. We should be communicating in this forum through the use of pictures which show clear evidence that there was a brain in gear. (It could be feeling, doesn't have to be thinking in the coldest, most rational fashion.)

scott

thoughltess images taken and processed without your brain behind the camera

Click to expand...

I like that definition. It fits well with the ethos of this forum.

My original definition concentrated on the 'snap' part of the word, as in making a snap decision. In these terms most of my landscape photos are 'snapshots', as they're taken while walking and I can't wait for the sun, clouds and hills to arrange themselves as I would like. Instead I try to catch the fleeting interplay of light and shade, sunshine and shadows.

I suppose where I differ from a professional photographer who has to make a decision based on time and money, is that I hate to throw any shot away. They're all precious to me, representing a unique time and place where I shall never be again, and I work for hours trying to get the not so good ones looking like my original vision.

Of course some are irretrievable and have to be discarded, like the ones of my feet, taken accidentally as I trip over a tree root. I have lots of photos of my feet which serve only to prove that my feet are too large and catch far too easily on small obstacles.

Stuart

edited to resolve a grammatical confusion

I think that one can readily see examples of the un-filtered choices.

In the initial splurge of photographs of pets, (which deserve, IMHO, the same respect as other subjects), the rush to post has not always been tempered by the need to be selective. There is, however, enough wonderful work to show the potential of this work here.

There is one thing to consider, if we value our new home, we can't show untidy photographs with poor lighting, little evidence of composition and overblown lighting, just because there's a loving pet in there somewhere.

The pet is not, after all making a rare appearance and can readily be photgraphed again with issues corrected. Also we want Professional Photographers of Pets to share their experiences. So the new home has to be kept up!

So far, I must say we have some very good work being shown.

The other part to be aware of is that we need to balance showing images with helping out with other parts of the forum so people's questions get helped rapidly.

Asher