# "Shoot" and "Shot" and "Shooting"



## Patrice (Jun 21, 2010)

I've been photographing people, scenes and objects for over 40 years and I've yet to "shoot" anything or anyone while using a camera. Call me old fashioned, anal retentive, grumpy, .... whatever you want, your choice, but I find the continuing use of "Shoot", "Shot" and "Shooting" amateurish. 

Pat
(grumpy old git)


----------



## Derrel (Jun 21, 2010)

Good for you Pat. I'll be printing out a Grammar Police Award of Appreciation for you and sending it to you care of general delivery there in Campbellton. Knowing the speed of the Canadian postal system, I would expect that it should arrive soon after the Hades freeze-over, sometime in late 2013.


----------



## Patrice (Jun 21, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Knowing the speed of the Canadian postal system, I would expect that it should arrive soon after the Hades freeze-over, sometime in late 2013.



Don't use general delivery overland service, you'll have to use the 'special speedy service' (S.S.S.) of our postal service un-provider if you wish for it to get here that quickly.


----------



## usayit (Jun 21, 2010)

Someone once told me that the term "Snapshot" was originally derived from Sharpshooters?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 21, 2010)

Patrice said:


> I've ben photographing people, scenes and objects for over 40 years and I've yet to "shoot" anything or anyone while using a camera. Call me old fashioned, anal retentive, grumpy, .... whatever you want, your choice, but I find the continuing use of "Shoot", "Shot" and "Shooting" amateurish.
> 
> Pat
> (grumpy old git)



I could not agree more.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 21, 2010)

usayit said:


> Someone once told me that the term "Snapshot" was originally derived from Sharpshooters?



I read some years ago a short article, with a citation from a bird hunter, that he had managed to kill a bird with a "snap shot", and that the term "snap shot" was thereafter used mainly in reference to shotgun hunting in which the shooter raises the shotgun to his shoulder, and fires very quickly. Being familiar with shotguns and shotgunning, I know that this type of shooting at a moving bird is often called "point shooting", as opposed to other methods like the sustained lead and the swing-through methods of leading a moving target. Point shooting, or "snap shooting" is most often used on very fast-moving and quickly disappearing game birds like grouse and quail. Again, the "snap shot" first reference I read about was from a bird hunter's field journals,and for some reason, the year strikes me as having been 1843...

Regardless...I have heard the term "shoot some photos", and well as the very common and widespread term "photo shoot" or "photoshoot" for many years now...as well as , "I missed the shot," and "I got the shot!" and so on. For many years my internet sig file was       Happy Shooting! --Derrel


----------



## Phranquey (Jun 21, 2010)

Patrice said:


> I've ben photographing people, scenes and objects for over 40 years and I've yet to "shoot" anything or anyone while using a camera. Call me old fashioned, anal retentive, grumpy, .... whatever you want, your choice, but I find the continuing use of "Shoot", "Shot" and "Shooting" amateurish.
> 
> Pat
> (grumpy old git)


 
OK....   Best of luck to you in getting those industry standard terms changed.:thumbup:


----------



## Dominantly (Jun 21, 2010)

Awesome thread, will read again.


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Jun 21, 2010)

I'm pretty sure the countless pro shooters out their who say "Shoot," "shooting," "shooter," and "shot" feel the sting of you considering them "amateurish."


----------



## table1349 (Jun 21, 2010)

Does this mean that I now have a *Pre-Arranged Photographic Session Involving Persons Wishing To Have Electronic Digital Pixel or Silver Halide Emulsion** Captures To Produce Electronic, Slide or Paper Positive Images Engagement* instead of a photo shoot tomorrow?  

If so I am going to up my rates.  There are some $5 and $10 words in that one.  That would be $150 & $200 words in Canadian currency.  :lmao:


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 21, 2010)

:lmao:


----------



## pbelarge (Jun 21, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> Awesome thread, will read again.


 

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## table1349 (Jun 21, 2010)

*"If by chance some day you're not feeling well and you  should remember some silly thing I've said or done and it brings back a  smile to your face or a chuckle to your heart, then my purpose as your  clown has been fulfilled."*   Red Skelton


----------



## maris (Jun 22, 2010)

I guess I'm another one who doesn't "shoot". 

When I'm doing camera work the task is "making exposures" or more formally "making photographic exposures". That's all that cameras can do: exposures not photographs. Whether a exposure becomes a photograph or not depends on what I do next. Since I mainly use 8x10 film virtually all my exposures become photographs in the darkroom. 

I've always thought it curious that a totally passive and receptive device like a camera is thought to "shoot". It is the subject matter which is literally doing the "shooting". The subject matter is spraying you with photons that were moments before part of itself. These photons pepper you in your skin, clothes, face, and eyes. And they don't stop while the lights are on. Now if you open a camera shutter the subject matter will spray the sensor behind it too.

The camera never shoots; it only receives.


----------



## pmsnel (Jun 22, 2010)

Objects do not "spray" photons... They absorb or reflect photons according to their wavelength.

But I think I will start to use the abbreviation: PAPSIPWTHEDPSHECTPESPPIE on all my communication to friends and clients!:lmao:


----------



## Derrel (Jun 22, 2010)

My,my,my, whatever will movie directors do about their use of terms such as "establishing shot", "medium shot", "dolly shot", "close-up shot", "crane shot", "helicopter shot", and "pull-back shot"??? 

OMG...an entire industry might have to reinvent the basic terms for the shots that form the basis of film making!   ACK!


----------



## white (Jun 22, 2010)

My old Minolta SLR, also known as the Tank, doesn't _shoot _per se, but it's heavy enough that when I venture into shady parts of town it makes a fine club.

Seriously, though, this has got to be the most idiotic thing to get upset about. Good photographers, good _artists_, don't worry about stupid shit like this. They just make great art, and leave the classifications and the labels up to the arm-chair philosophers.


----------



## pmsnel (Jun 22, 2010)

white said:


> Seriously, though, this has got to be the most idiotic thing to get upset about. Good photographers, good _artists_, don't worry about stupid shit like this. They just make great art, and leave the classifications and the labels up to the arm-chair philosophers.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 22, 2010)

Besides, if you tell people that you are going to go around exposing for people somebody is sure to call the cops.


----------



## ghache (Jun 22, 2010)

LOL!!

do you know what, 

i shoot people and i take shots.


/thread.


----------



## magkelly (Jun 22, 2010)

Much of photographic history was made in the American Old West. The terminology mostly came from the language of gun play. (The terms are older even still though. Archery came long before guns and  those terms were also used for that.) Saying someone was a fast, sharp shooter with a camera was actually compliment, usually made by people who did use guns on a daily basis. Back then taking a perfect shot, was very tricky and any photographer that could was considered to have a gunslinger's steady hands, even if he didn't carry a rifle or a pistol. That's also the reason you hear people say the shutter cocked and the camera fired all the time. The correlation between guns and cameras is as old as the art itself pretty much. 

I don't particularly like guns myself, but that being said I do admire skill when I see it.  When I see someone fire at a target way off in the distance and hit the bulls eye every darned time, I have to give that person credit. Anyone who can do the same with a camera is also worth my respect and the terminology does apply, IMHO because while the weapon is a camera the principles are actually the same and a camera can actually be as much of a weapon as any gun if you really think about it. 

How many times has a single photo altered the course of history and made people think? Ready, aim, shoot. Gun or camera, it really does apply.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jun 22, 2010)

Interesting thread.

I don't have much of a problem with "shooting" as I do with "taking."  "Taking" is what the casual camera user does; the casual user sees a scene and "takes" it just as it is.  Whereas a photographer takes control and therefore is "making" a photograph.

And I always smile at the phrase "fast glass," as if the term is used by industry insiders.  They're called lenses, and "bright" is a better adjective.

But none of this really matters and is scarcely worth mentioning if at all.

-Pete


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 22, 2010)

magkelly said:


> Much of photographic history was made in the American Old West. The terminology mostly came from the language of gun play. (The terms are older even still though. Archery came long before guns and  those terms were also used for that.) Saying someone was a fast, sharp shooter with a camera was actually compliment, usually made by people who did use guns on a daily basis. Back then taking a perfect shot, was very tricky and any photographer that could was considered to have a gunslinger's steady hands, even if he didn't carry a rifle or a pistol. That's also the reason you hear people say the shutter cocked and the camera fired all the time. The correlation between guns and cameras is as old as the art itself pretty much.
> 
> I don't particularly like guns myself, but that being said I do admire skill when I see it.  When I see someone fire at a target way off in the distance and hit the bulls eye every darned time, I have to give that person credit. Anyone who can do the same with a camera is also worth my respect and the terminology does apply, IMHO because while the weapon is a camera the principles are actually the same and a camera can actually be as much of a weapon as any gun if you really think about it.
> 
> How many times has a single photo altered the course of history and made people think? Ready, aim, shoot. Gun or camera, it really does apply.




I don't believe this at all. The term probably is related to: "It's a snap".


----------



## table1349 (Jun 22, 2010)

From this site: snapshot: Definition from Answers.com

"Originally a shooting term, meaning a shot taken with little or no  delay in aiming. It first acquired a photographic meaning as early as  the 1850s, when the first instantaneous exposures became possible. A  writer in 1859 spoke of snapping the camera shutter at the subject  and, in 1860, Sir John Herschel  first used the word snapshot when discussing the possibility of  taking a rapid sequence of instantaneous photographs to analyse motion.  However, it is only since the 1880s, with the emergence of popular  photography, that it has assumed its more common photographic  association and popular usage. Following the introduction of cheap,  easy-to-use hand cameras around the end of the 19th century, a snapshot  has progressively come to mean a photograph taken by an unsophisticated amateur,  using a simple camera.

Today, it is the intent of the  photographer, rather than the exposure time, that best serves to define  the snapshot. Whilst the majority of snapshots are taken with  comparatively brief exposures, some are not. Moreover, whilst the word  also implies a degree of spontaneity, many snapshots are the result of  considerable preparation and arrangement of the subject. The fundamental  characteristic of the snapshot is that it is a naive document,  motivated solely by a personal desire to create a photographic record of  a person, place, or event and with no artistic pretensions or  commercial considerations. Since snapshots are taken by people with  little or no technical knowledge of photography or the rules of compositionwith  often predictable and unfortunate resultsthe word has also acquired a  pejorative association. The popularization of photography was seen as a  threat by those who championed the status of the medium as Art. As early  as 1899 Alfred Stieglitz  complained that The placing in the hands of the general public a means  of making pictures  has of necessity been followed by the production  of millions of photographs. It is due to this fatal facility that  photography as a picture-making medium has fallen into disrepute.  Photographs considered to be without particular value or merit were  dismissed as snapshots or, in the abbreviated and even more  damning-sounding form of the word, as snaps.

In a shoebox at  the writer's parents' home there is a postcard addressed to his  grandmother, dated August 1963. From her deckchair on the beach, with  one eye on her 4-year-old son's sandcastle building, his mother writes:  Dad gone for a walk on his own to see the camera shops (no interest to  us). Thanks for sending the camera. It arrived safely. We have bought a  colour film so hope it turns out OK. We should have some good ones. His  father did indeed get some good ones, still kept in the same shoebox  as the postcardchildren paddling or donkey riding, their mother asleep  in her deckchairtogether with hundreds of other snapshots, bundled  together in this and other boxes. Snaps of family and friends, pets and  possessions, holidays and weddings, achievements and embarrassments.  Most families have a similar hoard, hidden away in wardrobes, cupboards  and drawers, boxes or old handbags. Accumulated over several  generations, they are a treasured part of the domestic clutter with  which we surround ourselves. Familiar, comfortable, and often  predictable images, they conform to a visual language that we can all  read. Together, they form a record of the complex relationships and  social rituals that shape our lives. Each collection of family snapshots  shares a common pattern, yet each is unique. Family snaps are an  essentially private medium in which we invest all the weight of our  personal experience and memory. No matter how technically poor they  might be, snapshots are enriched by the many layers of meaning that we  are able to bring to them. Remove this level of understanding and  personal involvement and the photograph is inevitably diminished. As  Hugo van Wadenoyen  wrote in _Wayside Snapshots_ (1947), snaps  are nearly always  dull, lifeless things. They are feeble ghosts of the occasions that have  brought them forth, mildly evocative possibly to those immediately  concerned in the events recorded but merely fatuous and boring to the  outsider. Snapshots may, of course, be viewed objectively, as it were  from outside. But the context then is that of social history,  sociology, or the history of photography.

Snapshots are primarily  personal records. Once removed from this context, their meaning  inevitably changes. When the link between the snapshot and its creator  or subject is severed, the anonymous photograph is laid open to a vast  range of potential readings. Lacking specific information, we rely on  imagination to fill the gaps. As Doug Nickel, curator of the first major  snapshot exhibition, held at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art in  1998, has written, we enjoy anonymous images for their strangeness,  their narrative indeterminacy, for the ambiguity that frequently compels  us to ask, Why was this picture taken? What is going on here? What were  they _thinking_? The voyeuristic pleasure obtained from examining  another's private documents  operates here as well, kindling voluptuous  speculation and vicarious sensation. However, whilst diminishing its  value, removing a snapshot from its contextual framework does not render  it entirely worthless. The value of snapshots as historical documents  has recently come to be recognized. Moreover, to the sociologist and  cultural anthropologist snapshots are a potentially rich resource for  study and interpretation. There is a danger of snapshots, just like  other vernacular evidence of material culture, being transformed into  aesthetic objects through being exhibited in galleries in a traditional  art context. However, this should not preclude a considered study of the  aesthetics of snapshot photography. Occasionally, of course, snapshot  photographers have created images of startling power and beauty. Given  the countless millions of snapshots that have been taken, however, this  is hardly surprising and should be viewed as serendipity rather than  design. Of greater importance is the snapshot's seeming lack of artifice  and unselfconscious directness of approach. From the 1970s, some  photographers, seeing a stylistic virtue in this perceived lack of  sophistication, created work that was grouped under the general label of  the snapshot aesthetic. Later, a similar approach may be identified  in the work of photographers such as Martin Parr  and Richard Billingham.  A different form of snapshot art is to be seen in the work of the  German artist Joachim Schmid, who for twenty years worked with found  photographs picked up in the street, arranging them into fantastic  visual archives.

The origins of popular photography can be traced  back to George Eastman's introduction in 1888 of the Kodak  camera, pre-loaded with film and marketed with the slogan You  press the button, we do the rest. For the first time, the act of  picture _taking_ was separated from that of picture _making_.  The Kodak was simple enough for anyone to use. Eastman claimed: We  furnish anybody, man, woman or child, who has sufficient intelligence to  point a box straight and press a button  with an instrument which  altogether removes from the practice of photography the necessity for  exceptional facilities, or in fact any special knowledge of the art. As  Frank Meadow Sutcliffe  put it, no longer did a photographer have to be an artist, chemist and  mechanical engineer rolled into one. With the rapid introduction of  cheaper camera models, culminating in Eastman's introduction of the Brownie in 1900, the economic as well as  the technical constraints which had delayed the popularization of  photography were lifted. For the first time, photography became  accessible to millions of people. By the 1930s it was estimated that  over half the households in Britain owned a camera. Today, most families  have several. The proliferation of cameras has been dynamically related  to advances in photographic technology, especially since the 1970s.  Colour film, electronic flash, automatic exposure, focusing, and loading  made it easier than ever for anyone to produce sharp, correctly exposed  photographs, indoors or out. From the late 1990s, home computer  ownership, cheaper cameras, and direct printing technology brought digital  photography within reach of the point- and-shoot amateur. However,  whether in colour or black- and-white, silver based or digital, the  subjects that people choose to photograph and the ways in which they  photograph them have changed remarkably little. The syntax of the  snapshot has remained consistent over generations. The typical roll of  film (or flash card) still has a Christmas tree at each end and a beach  in the middle, and the birth of a child remains the prime incentive for  buying a camera.


_  Colin Harding​_​Bibliography


Green, J. (ed.),  _The Snapshot_, Aperture, 19 (1974).
Coe,  B., and Gates, P., _The Snapshot Photograph: The Rise of Popular  Photography, 1888-1939_ (1977).
King, G., _Say Cheese:  The Snapshot as Art and Social History_ (1986).
Harding C.,  and Lewis, B., _Kept in a Shoebox: The Popular Experience of  Photography_ (1992).
Kenyon, D., _Inside Amateur  Photography_ (1992).
Starl, T., _Knipser: Die  Bildgeschichte der privaten Fotografie in Deutschland und Österreich von  1880 bis 1980_ (1995).
Nickel, D., _Snapshots: The  Photography of Everyday Life, 1888 to the Present_ (1998).
Batchen,  G. (ed.), _Vernacular Photographies_, History of  Photography, 24 (2000).
Smith, J., _Roll  Over: The Snapshot's Museum Afterlife_, Afterimage, 29  (2001)       "


----------



## usayit (Jun 22, 2010)

"Oh Snap!"


----------



## Browncoat (Jun 22, 2010)

This thread is full of win and dipped in awesomesauce.  Bookmarked.

:thumbup:


----------



## table1349 (Jun 22, 2010)

usayit said:


> "Oh Snap!"



Shouldn't that be "Oh Snap.......Shot" ??????


----------



## white (Jun 22, 2010)

magkelly said:


> I don't particularly like guns myself, but that being said I do admire skill when I see it.  When I see someone fire at a target way off in the distance and hit the bulls eye every darned time, I have to give that person credit. Anyone who can do the same with a camera is also worth my respect and the terminology does apply, IMHO because while the weapon is a camera the principles are actually the same and a camera can actually be as much of a weapon as any gun if you really think about it.
> 
> How many times has a single photo altered the course of history and made people think? Ready, aim, shoot. Gun or camera, it really does apply.


Good point. Reminds me of Eddie Adams comment about the photo of General Nguyen Ngoc Loan.



			
				Eddie Adams said:
			
		

> I won a Pulitzer Prize in 1969 for a photograph of one man shooting  another. Two people died in that photograph: the recipient of the bullet  and GENERAL NGUYEN NGOC LOAN. The general killed the Viet Cong; I  killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most  powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do  lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths. What the  photograph didn't say was, "What would you do if you were the general at  that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad  guy after he blew away one, two or three American soldiers?" General  Loan was what you would call a real warrior, admired by his troops. I'm  not saying what he did was right, but you have to put yourself in his  position. The photograph also doesn't say that the general devoted much  of his time trying to get hospitals built in Vietnam for war casualties.  This picture really messed up his life. He never blamed me. He told me  if I hadn't taken the picture, someone else would have, but I've felt  bad for him and his family for a long time. I had kept in contact with  him; the last time we spoke was about six months ago, when he was very  ill. I sent flowers when I heard that he had died and wrote, "I'm sorry.  There are tears in my eyes."


----------



## Morpheuss (Jul 8, 2010)

I personally like the term shot. I don't like snapshot because I see snapshots as quick and not thought out but if you say man that was a great shot I think of a sniper sitting up on a hill for hours on end waiting for the perfect moment and then takes his shot. Sometimes when I am having a hard time finding good pictures. I know is sounds childish but I like to go around thinking that I am a sniper only with my camera. I walk around the woods slowly looking all around and when I see something I like I pull my camera up take a few breaths and shot. I got it. 

Just something I use to shake things up alittle and keep things interesting for me. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## wtlwdwgn (Nov 18, 2012)

This is a very funny thread. It does remind me of a tale whereby a well known photographer was invited to the Reagan White House to photograph the First Family. So this notable wag shows up at the gate and says (yep, he did!), "I'm here to shoot the President." Perhaps it would be better to use another term.  :lmao:


----------



## Derrel (Nov 18, 2012)

Whadda ya mean "*this morning*"???? This thread is like two years old!!! It's from 2010, and somebody dug this one up!!!


----------



## unpopular (Nov 18, 2012)

newbies and their shovels! that's why I deleted it. I hoped you hadn't noticed it 


so does this mean you *do* take Geritol?! :lmao:


----------



## Tony S (Nov 18, 2012)

Ohhh crap, since we've gone completely bonkers I guess we have to stop using "I took a picture" since I really didn't take anything.  I made an image.  :er:


----------



## Dikkie (Nov 18, 2012)

Define 'shoot':
Shoot | Define Shoot at Dictionary.com

Verb !!
>>> 18. Photography . to photograph or film.


----------



## TATTRAT (Nov 18, 2012)

Tony S said:


> Ohhh crap, since we've gone completely bonkers I guess we have to stop using "I took a picture" since I really didn't take anything.  I made an image.  :er:




On that note, I will stop "taking a leak", I will call it "leaving a leak".


----------



## Patrice (Nov 18, 2012)

Whoever brought this back to life should reconsider the amount of time spent on old threads. 

Let it rest in peace!


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 18, 2012)

Oh good.
I was trying to find yet another way to feel good about my own self and look down on others.


----------



## EIngerson (Nov 18, 2012)

I'm going to go shoot some shots. This thread is amateurish.


----------



## sm4him (Nov 18, 2012)

Patrice said:


> Whoever brought this back to life should reconsider the amount of time spent on old threads.
> 
> Let it rest in peace!



On the contrary, I'd like to thank them for digging this up. I missed it the first time, as I wasn't yet a member here, and so, in my ignorance, I've just continued on, blithely using the terms "shoot" "shot" and "shooting" in reference to the photographic images that I was producing with my camera. 
Well, that's not quite right either, as *I* am not the one producing the images; I'm just the shutter actuator. Well no, not that either--I push on that little button on the top of the camera, which in turn triggers...

Ah, never mind. I'm gonna go take a shot and then shoot something. 

Seriously, what a highly entertaining thread. Shoot, I'd read it again.  As soon as I finish watching this paint dry.

I *love* to use the term "shoot" to refer to photography--since I'm the "official unofficial photographer" for my employer, I sometimes, on a particularly frustrating day in the office, relieve some stress by grabbing the camera and going out to do some photography.  I delight in telling my boss "I'm going out to shoot something..."
I nearly always mean photography.


----------



## runnah (Nov 18, 2012)

My panties are in such a twist about this issue that I am sure they will have to be removed surgically.


----------



## skieur (Nov 23, 2012)

Patrice said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Knowing the speed of the Canadian postal system, I would expect that it should arrive soon after the Hades freeze-over, sometime in late 2013.
> ...



Having worked during a Christmas school break in the Canadian postal system despite the smell of pot during break periods, and having frequently done shoots in New Brunswick including this previous summer, I can appreciate and relate to the humour.

skieur


----------



## bunny99123 (Nov 23, 2012)

To each his own...  I use those words, and I got an interesting side glance from an employee.  I was checking out some cameras, yes, in Best Buy, and anyway, I told my husband, "I bet I could shoot people with this."  My husband told the guy I was talking about taking photos.  Got to watch were I use these terms.


----------



## John27 (Nov 26, 2012)

Language is a series of sounds or images that convey a universally understood meaning.  If I say "I shot a picture", the receiver understands my communication.

Using less professional terms or poor grammar can still communicate the message, but it can also communicate a lack of competence.  I get that.  BUT, there are a LOT of 'misnomers'.  How many people call the part of their computer everything plugs into the "CPU"?  The CPU is a component WITHIN that system.  What about 'balls out' or 'balls to the wall', should you ONLY use those terms when referring to a 19th century steam engine that has reached it's maximum safe speed and thus the governor (two weighted balls attached to a valve that, when spun at a certain speed, will swing way out closing said valve and slowing the engine) is shutting it down?  Or can you also use it for other exciting, near-the-limit, as-much-as-I-can-do type scenarios?  Should we stop calling the machines we do post processing on 'computers' since that's a term that is more related to their earliest ancestors, should we instead call them "Graphical User Interface Aided Personal Computing and Software Executing Devices with advanced Input and Output capabilities?"

I do get where you are coming from.  It's kind of like watching a movie and seeing the actor screw something up when it's something you are familiar with.  Like when an actor fires a rifle placed UNDER their arm.  That's not how a gun works, in fact, they'd have a bloody nose and a rifle 10 feet behind them in the dirt if they did that!  Or when an actor fires an M1911 .45ACP, and calls it a 'glock' (In Hollywood, every pistol is a glock, every assault rifle is an AK-47, etc.)  It's not REALLY a big deal, it's just annoying for a guy like me who likes to shoot (not cameras, guns, heh!), aka someone who understands the difference between a Glock (which is a brand anyway, not a single pistol) and the various other models and calibers of semi-automatic pistols.  

Sometimes you just gotta let stuff go.


----------



## Luke345678 (Nov 27, 2012)

I almost died lauging after reading this thread. Are you serious? You care that people use the words shooting, shot and shoot? That is ridicolous. If you really care about photography a lot then I don't think you would care about the words people use. I use those words all the time and so do many proffesionals.


----------



## Mully (Nov 27, 2012)

Just don't the police hear you!


----------



## dbvirago (Nov 27, 2012)

Not really worried about that, since I shot the sheriff. Of course, forgetting to also shoot the deputy may prove problematic.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 27, 2012)

The shooting of the sheriff, was it in self defense?


----------



## skieur (Nov 29, 2012)

unpopular said:


> The shooting of the sheriff, was it in self defense?



Was it when he was trying to stop you from taking photos in a public place?

skieur


----------



## 12sndsgood (Nov 29, 2012)

i'd weight in but I have to go to the drive way where i parked my car and go drive down the parkway because its the only way to get to my destination to go do some shooting. hmmmm I guess there are all sorts of ways of saying things.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 29, 2012)

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > The shooting of the sheriff, was it in self defense?
> ...



fail.


----------



## runnah (Nov 29, 2012)

unpopular said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



Canada.


----------



## jake337 (Nov 29, 2012)

I like stuff....


Stuff makes me laugh...


----------



## panblue (Nov 29, 2012)

usayit said:


> Someone once told me that the term "Snapshot" was originally derived from Sharpshooters?



Yes, I believe it is.


----------



## table1349 (Nov 29, 2012)

jake337 said:


> I like stuff....
> 
> 
> Stuff makes me laugh...



Here you go.  Now you can laugh till ya puke.


----------



## skieur (Dec 1, 2012)

unpopular said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



:lmao:


----------



## skieur (Dec 1, 2012)

runnah said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



No, most of the rednecks are down south.

skieur


----------



## Getprophoto (Dec 8, 2012)

I think the issue isn't so much about whether the terms are irritating or not, what is important is how your clients (not customers!) perceive you. Some words sound more professional than others, so in turn, you are perceived as being more professional. What sounds better "I'm going to take a great shot of your family" or "I'm going to create a beautiful photo of your family" 'Picture' is another word that devalues your craft. Other negative words are 'cost' and 'price'. It's much better to say 'investment'. I learned the importance of the words you use from the great American salesman Zig Ziglar (who died last week).


----------



## EIngerson (Dec 8, 2012)

Getprophoto said:


> I think the issue isn't so much about whether the terms are irritating or not, what is important is how your clients (not customers!) perceive you. Some words sound more professional than others, so in turn, you are perceived as being more professional. What sounds better "I'm going to take a great shot of your family" or "I'm going to create a beautiful photo of your family" 'Picture' is another word that devalues your craft. Other negative words are 'cost' and 'price'. It's much better to say 'investment'. I learned the importance of the words you use from the great American salesman Zig Ziglar (who died last week).



I think this falls in with the great pussification of America. Who cares, people have heard shoot, shot and shooting for years. They know what's being said. Let it go.


----------



## STIC (Dec 8, 2012)

...


----------



## table1349 (Dec 8, 2012)

Getprophoto said:


> I think the issue isn't so much about whether the terms are irritating or not, what is important is how your clients (not customers!) perceive you. Some words sound more professional than others, so in turn, you are perceived as being more professional. What sounds better "I'm going to take a great shot of your family" or "I'm going to create a beautiful photo of your family" 'Picture' is another word that devalues your craft. Other negative words are 'cost' and 'price'. It's much better to say 'investment'. I learned the importance of the words you use from the great American salesman Zig Ziglar (who died last week).





Ahh, I can here it now......_"Yes is this the Penny's photo booth?  I wondering what is the investment to get some pictures of my 5 year old?"_


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 8, 2012)

This is a thing?

Seriously?

I long for the day when a term used in photography becomes such an issue that I feel the need to start a discussion thread about it. That will be the signal that all the important stuff, to me, has already been discussed.

To the OP: If you don't like the terms, don't use them. If you don't like that others choose to use those terms, get over it. It's not going to change...


----------

