# Snapshot vs Photograph



## AgentDrex (Aug 29, 2010)

What's the difference?

How can one tell the difference between a snapshot and a good photo?


----------



## AdrianC (Aug 29, 2010)

I guess a snapshot is when you just point the camera and shoot, with no thought to the composition of the picture. This often results in a low quality picture.


----------



## squee (Aug 29, 2010)

AdrianC said:


> I guess a snapshot is when you just point the camera and shoot, with no thought to the composition of the picture. This often results in a low quality picture.



Sometimes you get lucky with snapshots and sometimes you're trained so well you look for composition intuitively. I think a snapshot is just a photo that can't be 'saved' with PPing and there's just nothing artistic (technically or creatively) about it.


----------



## ann (Aug 29, 2010)

this is my definition.

a snapshot apeals to only the people in the photo or to someone who knows them or the photographer.

a photograph will make a strange take a second look and perhaps even a wow.

it is so hard as we all bring our "luggage " to the table which influences our preceptions.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 29, 2010)

Someone in another post said sports shots are snapshots so i shoot 90% snapshots


----------



## Derrel (Aug 29, 2010)

Every snapshot is a photograph. But not every photograph is a snapshot.


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

gsgary said:


> Someone in another post said sports shots are snapshots so i shoot 90% snapshots


That was me and I still hold that opinion. 

For me, a snapshot is a shot that is taken quickly without thought. It doesn't mean the shot is bad, it just means it was a quick shot (a "snap"shot). In sports photography, you often take many pictures in hopes of catching that perfect moment.

 If you take a picture of something that you put any level of thought into, then it's not a snapshot. In other words, if you planned the shot, it's not a snapshot. You don't plan the moment a receiver catches a touchdown pass, so it's a snapshot. (Again, this is not a bad thing.)

A snapshot could be in National Geographic and so could a "photograph". To me, the two terms don't differentiate between quality, they differentiate between method of shooting.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 29, 2010)

Polyphony said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Someone in another post said sports shots are snapshots so i shoot 90% snapshots
> ...



I'm sorry to piss on your fireworks  but i put a lot of thought into my sport shots, where the light is coming from, best angle to shoot from and best settings, no good sport shot is a snapshot
Here's a few of my snapshots


----------



## squee (Aug 29, 2010)

Polyphony said:


> To me, the two terms don't differentiate between quality, they differentiate between method of shooting.



:thumbup: I agree. I don't think it's anything to take offense to, either.


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

gsgary said:


> Polyphony said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



I think you misunderstood me or I was not clear enough.  You may have planned where you shoot from and where the light is coming from but you did not plan where the bicycle rider would be as he came around that bend. You did not plan where the ball would be after it was deflected (or missed) by the goalie. You just snapped the picture when something interesting happened (or might happen). You didn't plan the expression on the goalie's face when he realized he missed the save.  It's just a photo that you took in a snap. Hence, a snapshot. It's a great photograph, but it is described as a snapshot. 

Like Derrel said, all snapshots are photographs, but not all photographs are snapshots.


----------



## white (Aug 29, 2010)

AgentDrex said:


> What's the difference?
> 
> How can one tell the difference between a snapshot and a good photo?


Intent.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 29, 2010)

Polyphony said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Polyphony said:
> ...



I still disagree if you know the sport you have a good idea what is going to happen, but you are saying it is guess work which is wrong, this shot was planned because the owner of the nearest horse asked if i could get one with its legs at full stretch


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

gsgary said:


> Polyphony said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



Still a snapshot. You waited for the moment that you "thought" the legs would be at full stride. Regardless of how much you "knew" when that was going to happen. That is only due to your experience watching the sport. You were still guessing though. You could have pressed the shutter half a second too early or late.  Just the fact that the shot is constrained by so little time indicates to me that it is a snapshot. If an image can be made or ruined in fractions of a second, it is a snapshot. You can not argue that you knew EXACTLY when the goalie would look at the ball, or EXACTLY when the horses legs would be in the perfect position. Whichever way you look at it, you guessed.

Edit: And if you shot in burst mode, that speaks "snapshot" even more.

I think you're getting defensive because you think that I'm saying all snapshots are bad. That is not what I'm saying. Re-read my posts if you have to.

The question of whether to use "photograph" or "snapshot" is dependent on time, not thought.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 29, 2010)

Polyphony said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Polyphony said:
> ...



I'm off to the pub before i get angry  are you saying any newb could get the shot, not going by some shots i see on here


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

gsgary said:


> Polyphony said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


I'm not saying any newb could get the shot. Like you said, the shots you showed require you to scope out a good location and angle from which you will be able to take advantage of light and movement of the players. You still need to think and know about composition, lighting etc. 

On the other hand, if you set up your camera in that position, adjusted all the settings to your liking, and then picked a 13 year old from the crowd to press the shutter button when he saw the ball go passed the goalie, the shot would be the same. It's still a snapshot. This example removes the photographer from the image and focuses (no pun intended) on the variable that determines "snapshot" or "photograph" (in MY opinion), which is time.

Also remember, we are both allowed to have our opinions. Just keep in mind that I am NOT saying your photos are bad by calling them "snapshots".


----------



## cfusionpm (Aug 29, 2010)

"Snapshot" / "Photograph"


----------



## DennyCrane (Aug 29, 2010)

The key to this discussion is, to a photographer, "snapshot" is a derogatory word. When I tell someone "that's a lovely snapshot", I've given the worst insult I can possibly imagine in this field.


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> The key to this discussion is, to a photographer, "snapshot" is a derogatory word. When I tell someone "that's a lovely snapshot", I've given the worst insult I can possibly imagine in this field.


I understand the connotation but I disagree.


----------



## white (Aug 29, 2010)

Disagree all you want. Doesn't change the fact that most photographers (i.e., those trying to improve their craft) will interpret "snapshot" as an insult. Additionally, it is impossible to take a photo without thought.


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

white said:


> Disagree all you want.


Why would you expect me to suddenly agree?



white said:


> Doesn't change the fact that most photographers (i.e., those trying to improve their craft) will interpret "snapshot" as an insult.



I guess I'm not most photographers. 



white said:


> Additionally, it is impossible to take a photo without thought.



It's impossible to do anything without thought. I apologize if you have trouble making inferences.  I didn't _literally_ mean "without thought".  I've already explained my view multiple times and in different ways. If you still can't understand what I'm saying then I suggest you just pretend I never posted in this thread.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 29, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> The key to this discussion is, to a photographer, "snapshot" is a derogatory word. When I tell someone "that's a lovely snapshot", I've given the worst insult I can possibly imagine in this field.



I think he is having lessons with PP


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

gsgary said:


> I think he is having lessons with PP



Are you referring to me or the quote, "that's a lovely snapshot"?


----------



## gsgary (Aug 29, 2010)

Polyphony said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I think he is having lessons with PP
> ...



I thought you be getting tips from our friend P Prime


----------



## kalni (Aug 29, 2010)

Maybe it all boils down to what snapshot formally means in the English language. 

From the Oxford dictionary - 

_snapshot_ - an informal photograph taken  quickly, typically with a small handheld camera

And from Wikipedia - 

A *snapshot* is popularly defined as a photograph  that is "shot" spontaneously and quickly, most often without artistic  or journalistic intent. Snapshots are commonly considered to be  technically "imperfect" or amateurish--out of focus or poorly framed or composed. The term derives from the snap shot of hunting. 

Going by these definitions, no wonder then that professionals might take offense to their photographs being called snapshots however unintentional the intent might be


----------



## white (Aug 29, 2010)

Polyphony said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Someone in another post said sports shots are snapshots so i shoot 90% snapshots
> ...


I have no trouble at all making inferences. "... a snapshot is a shot that is taken quickly without thought" is pretty straightforward, is it not? Without thought. Again, that is impossible. The comment is still idiotic even if I give you the benefit of the doubt. Quickness is not an adequate criteria for which we should determine quality. Some of the best street photography in the world is quick. So what? They're also fucking awesome _photographs_.



> If you take a picture of something that you put any level of thought into, then it's not a snapshot.


So this basically includes all photographs. 





> You don't plan the moment a receiver catches a touchdown pass, so it's a snapshot.


Actually, it can be planned. Sports photographers using 35mm film have been planning and getting those shots for years.


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

white said:


> Polyphony said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


You clearly have not read all of my posts. 


white said:


> Quickness is not an adequate criteria for which we should determine quality. Some of the best street photography in the world is quick. So what? They're also fucking awesome _photographs_.



When did I ever say that quickness determines quality. In fact, if you've read my posts (which you clearly haven't) I've been saying just the opposite. I won't even bother to find the multiple quotes in which I do because if you couldn't take the time to read the entire thread, you won't take the time to understand what I'm saying.

Edit: In an attempt to end this ridiculous argument (but mostly because I'm bored) I have found a quote that should satisfy you.
"A snapshot could be in National Geographic and so could a "photograph". To me, the two terms don't differentiate between quality, they differentiate between method of shooting."
And by "method of shooting" I am referring to "time", which you would understand if you had read all of my posts.



white said:


> Actually, it can be planned. Sports photographers using 35mm film have been planning and getting those shots for years.


You're missing the point, yet again.

Further edit: I don't understand why people are getting so defensive. The OP asked a simple question. What is the difference between these two words. I explained my view on how they are different. My view is clearly different from others' view. Instead of trying to say I'm wrong, why don't you answer the OP's question and support it with evidence that you have discovered on your own.


----------



## NateWagner (Aug 29, 2010)

So if I am reading right, Polyphony believes that a snapshot is an image that is fully planned, and thought through... also, It seems it would be something that would be able to be done with a timer as well as by hand, as a photograph is not influenced by timing. If it were influenced by timing it would be a snapshot right?

Obviously the problem is it takes away all portraits from being photography (street photography is obviously also off the docket) from being a photograph. Really the only things I can think of that would be photography would be maybe landscape photography, and still life images.


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

NateWagner said:


> So if I am reading right, Polyphony believes that a snapshot is an image that is fully planned, and thought through... also, It seems it would be something that would be able to be done with a timer as well as by hand, as a photograph is not influenced by timing. If it were influenced by timing it would be a snapshot right?
> 
> Obviously the problem is it takes away all portraits from being photography (street photography is obviously also off the docket) from being a photograph. Really the only things I can think of that would be photography would be maybe landscape photography, and still life images.


This is not what I believe but considering you didn't get all aggressive, I will explain my belief again. A snapshot is any photograph that relies on timing of the subject. For instance, the time it takes for a ball to fly past a goalie is what? 1/4 - 1/2 a second or less? If you actually got that shot off (as gsgary showed in one of his posts), then it is a snapshot. Regardless of how long it took him to plan the location and lighting. It's still a snapshot because of the time frame. If you look at an image of a rose resting on a concrete sidewalk, it is a photograph. The subject is not moving. You will not have missed the shot if you waited 1/2 a second longer. I realize the issue arises in landscape photography where you are limited by the time of day and passing clouds.  In this case, I would still call them photographs because there is still significant time to get the shot you want. The sun doesn't set in 1/2 second.

By the way, photographs _are_ influenced by timing...I think I explained how in the above paragraph.


*After re-reading your post, did you mean to say, "Polyphony believes that a photograph is an image that is fully planned..."? If that's what you meant, then yes, everything you said is what I believe.
*


----------



## ann (Aug 29, 2010)

gsgray

crossed my mind they are very much alike


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

ann said:


> gsgray
> 
> crossed my mind they are very much alike


This is an entirely different discussion but the premise of it is hilarious and ironic to me. I hope others realize why.


----------



## NateWagner (Aug 29, 2010)

but you would agree with regard to portraits as they are typically depending on timing. I mean, you tell the people what to do, but often you try to time it where the people are most natural, and not with odd expressions. 

Or is the key to it having a substantial amount of time, such that if you have a portrait say in a studio in which you say for example "turn your head, tilt this way, smile, on the count of three... then that would be a portrait?


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

NateWagner said:


> but you would agree with regard to portraits as they are typically depending on timing. I mean, you tell the people what to do, but often you try to time it where the people are most natural, and not with odd expressions.
> 
> Or is the key to it having a substantial amount of time, such that if you have a portrait say in a studio in which you say for example "turn your head, tilt this way, smile, on the count of three... then that would be a portrait?


I never go into that much detail at all when making a distinction between "snapshot" and "photograph" but for the purposes of this thread, I explained my thoughts. In reality I look at all images as "pictures" and evaluate them as such. I would never think of a picture differently depending on whether or not it is a snapshot or photograph. 

But to answer your question, yes, having a substantial amount of time is the difference in my opinion. If you were to catch a model with an unplanned expression or spontaneous motion, then I'd call it a snapshot. Pictures that appear on the cover of magazines for example, are photographs because (most of the time) they are planned.

The important thing to remember is that in reality, this distinction means absolutely nothing (in *my* opinion). It's like the difference between pail and container.  In reality, there is no difference between saying "hand me that container" or "hand me that pail".


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 29, 2010)

Oh this is a fun thread!


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Oh this is a fun thread!



I agree, I'm surprised that with the exception of about 3 other people and I, no one else has an opinion on this.


----------



## mishele (Aug 29, 2010)

white said:


> AgentDrex said:
> 
> 
> > What's the difference?
> ...



:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 29, 2010)

Polyphony said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Oh this is a fun thread!
> ...



I think there just isn't a whole lot to discuss.  Anything anyone can say will just be their personal opinion.

I think it's all about intent.  If you just want to 'preserve the moment', and don't really care about anything else - snapshot.

Even a snapshot is a 'photograph' though.    Although, even though a 'photograph' is just an 'image, created by light' - I personally think it should only apply to a _print_.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 29, 2010)

Polyphony said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Oh this is a fun thread!
> ...


 
Well, when you hold a definition to a word that goes against conventional wisdom, and you aren't discussing the topic at hand, what to do you expect?

The context of the question is, what is the difference between a crap image, and a good image. You are argueing about a definition. I see many holes in your definition from what you have posted thus far, but I don't care to argue. I'd rather sit back, eat my popcorn, and giggle.


----------



## kalni (Aug 29, 2010)

I would say in snapshots you _*seize*_ an opportunity while in photographs
you _*create*_ one.


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Polyphony said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...



Maybe I'm just crazy but I try use the English language as it was intended to be used. Words have definitions. Why would you ignore that? Yes, I am arguing about a definition because that is exactly what is relevant to this question.



Bitter Jeweler said:


> I see many holes in your definition from what you have posted thus far, but I don't care to argue. I'd rather sit back, eat my popcorn, and giggle.


Why involve yourself in a thread and then sarcastically state that you won't continue to contribute? Your user name is suiting.


----------



## Hillsong (Aug 29, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Every snapshot is a photograph. But not every photograph is a snapshot.



I have to agree with Derrel on this one.

From Wikipedia: A photograph (often shortened to photo) is an image created by light falling on a light-sensitive surface, usually photographic film or an electronic imager such as a CCD or a CMOS chip.

Indeed, in the most literal sense, every image produced by a camera is a photograph. However not every photograph is a snapshot.

"I don't understand why people are getting so defensive."

They're getting defensive because it seems that you are speaking another dialect of Photography. Although it may not be your intention, the wording that you are choosing to describe certain images is derogatory and offensive to the majority of photographers. For example: In some cultures or people groups, a certain word may be a neutral descriptor, however to others, it may mean something completely different and offensive. I won't give specific examples now in order to avoid offending someone, but give it some thought.


----------



## israel09 (Aug 29, 2010)

I always thought of a snapshot as just something you take  so you can laugh or smile at later. for example, you're at a prom and you say "oh , nice dress", and take the picture. with out putting any photographic merit into it.  Or if your friend is doing something funny and you say.  "I just have to take a picture, i gotta show tim later" 

But a Photograph is planned art.You're expecting to look at it and say "Yeah, I did pretty good" or for others to say "That's a great photo"  Something that you put effort or art into. 

Driving in Nascar and driving to the store are both considering driving

Both people call themselves DRIVERS but only one calls himself a RACER

so you and your goofy friend are both technically Photographers, but only one of you expects Photographs to be the outcome


----------



## ann (Aug 29, 2010)

i understand this is a different discussion but the outcome is probably going to be similar.

only 40 more pages to go


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 29, 2010)

Polyphony said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Polyphony said:
> ...


 
Language is also rather fluid, and definitions change over time. While you wish to continue argueing over it, you are not exactly addressing the OP's issue. I believe it stems from one of his threads, where an image was called a snapshot, and the use of the term was actually erroneous. Which I believe confused Agent Drex..



> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > I see many holes in your definition from what you have posted thus far, but I don't care to argue. I'd rather sit back, eat my popcorn, and giggle.
> ...


 
Why should I engage in your arguement? You seem rather stubborn, and thus, continueing becomes moot.


----------



## Storky1980 (Aug 29, 2010)

ann said:


> this is my definition.
> 
> a snapshot apeals to only the people in the photo or to someone who knows them or the photographer.
> 
> a photograph will make a strange take a second look and perhaps even a wow.



I think this question was answered accurately in the first page


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> The context of the question is, what is the difference between a crap image, and a good image. You are argueing about a definition.
> Language is also rather fluid, and definitions change over time. While you wish to continue argueing over it, you are not exactly addressing the OP's issue. I believe it stems from one of his threads, where an image was called a snapshot, and the use of the term was actually erroneous. Which I believe confused Agent Drex..


I believe that I am addressing the OP's issue. He asked what is the difference between a crap picture and a good "photograph". Or "what is the difference between a snapshot and a photograph" (as the title of the thread suggests). Which implies that he thinks a snapshot is a bad picture.

What I'm trying to show is that in my opinion, a snapshot is not a bad picture.  Snapshot and photograph are two words to describe the methods of capture of an image.  It is the standalone image itself, or "picture" that determines "good" and "bad", not the word "snapshot" or "photograph". He is asking to differentiate between two words. My answer is that *in terms of image quality*, there is no difference. This was also my opinion and I was very clear about this.



Bitter Jeweler said:


> Why should I engage in your arguement? You seem rather stubborn, and thus, continueing becomes moot.


I'm stubborn because I'm expressing my opinion and supplying you with reasons why I have that opinion? I think that you expect me to just agree with what everyone else is saying.  Instead of supplying your own opinion you continue to insist that my opinion is wrong.  This issue is purely subjective which is why it was made into a thread in the first place (subjectivity can lead to confusion). 



Hillsong said:


> "I don't understand why people are getting so defensive."
> 
> They're getting defensive because it seems that you are speaking another dialect of Photography. Although it may not be your intention, the wording that you are choosing to describe certain images is derogatory and offensive to the majority of photographers.


How is anything I said regarding someone's photo derogatory. In fact, I specifically mentioned that I was NOT diminishing the quality of anyone's photo by calling it a snapshot.

The only time I wrote anything remotely derogatory was when someone acted that way in response to my posts. Other than that, I have not been mean, nasty, or degrading in any of my posts. I fail to see what I have done wrong here. I continue to explain my opinion and why I think what I think.


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

ann said:


> i understand this is a different discussion but the outcome is probably going to be similar.
> 
> only 40 more pages to go


I highly disagree. I would not say anything close to what he has to some posters. My intent is not to be condescending, it is to express my opinion which was asked by the OP.  If you read my posts you will realize that that is all I have done.


----------



## Hillsong (Aug 29, 2010)

Polyphony said:


> Hillsong said:
> 
> 
> > "I don't understand why people are getting so defensive."
> ...



Please re-read what i said. I SPECIFICALLY stated that it may not be your _intention_ to do so, but you inadvertantly _are_ offending people by your statement. We understand what you believe. I am simply saying that many people do not believe the same thing that you do, and, due to that disparity of interpretation, are offended by your calling a photo a snapshot, no matter what the intention.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 29, 2010)

ann said:


> gsgray
> 
> crossed my mind they are very much alike



 Havn't you seen all the help i have tried to give today :lmao:


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

Hillsong said:


> Polyphony said:
> 
> 
> > Hillsong said:
> ...



I understand what you said. But the whole purpose of my posting in this thread was to show that calling a picture a "snapshot" does not mean it's a terrible picture. The fact that I said that should let people know that I am not saying anything bad about their pictures. There really is no reason for anyone to get offended.  If anyone was offended then I'm sorry. They should realize that I am not being derogatory, just the opposite in fact.

For example: I called gsgary's photos snapshots but I SPECIFICALLY said that that was NOT an indication of the quality of his images. I happen to think that the shot of the goalie is excellent.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 29, 2010)

Why would they realize that, Polyphony, when the hundred other people who say it, mean it as "your image is bad"? Hmmm?


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Why would they realize that, Polyphony, when the hundred other people who say it, mean it as "your image is bad"? Hmmm?


If they can read, they would realize that; seeing as how I clearly stated it in my posts...hilarious.

The "hundred other people" (what hundred by the way?) who say it in a derogatory way are not relevant here anyway because I am expressing MY opinion, not the opinion of others.  I am amazed that you and others don't see this. How many times have I stated that it was *MY OPINION?*


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 29, 2010)

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.

You're precious.


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.
> 
> You're precious.


How clever...
You haven't contributed anything useful to this thread or the OP's question.

Congratulations. You pay to be a member of forum in which you continue to act like an opinion...yeah, you know what I mean.


----------



## astroskeptic (Aug 29, 2010)

Polyphony, your definition of snapshot is worth consideration, but I would point out that it has evolved over the course of this thread and perhaps your refusal to acknowledge this plays some part in the rancor you seem to have stirred up. Your initial definition seemed to include two necessary aspects: time constraint and lack of thought (_"If you take a picture of something that you put any level of thought into, then it's not a snapshot"_). Lately, the definition seems to have narrowed to include only the concept of time constraint.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 29, 2010)

Polyphony said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.
> ...


 
Awww...what happened to your high horse? I wanted to pet it.


----------



## DennyCrane (Aug 29, 2010)

ITT, PP is posting under a different name


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

astroskeptic said:


> Polyphony, your definition of snapshot is worth consideration, but I would point out that it has evolved over the course of this thread and perhaps your refusal to acknowledge this plays some part in the rancor you seem to have stirred up. Your initial definition seemed to include two necessary aspects: time constraint and lack of thought (_"If you take a picture of something that you put any level of thought into, then it's not a snapshot"_). Lately, the definition seems to have narrowed to include only the concept of time constraint.


This is true. Lately I have been focusing mainly on time simply because it outweighs the necessity of "thought". If a shot is made in a matter of 1/2 to 1/4 of a second, I assumed not as much thought was put into the actual taking of the picture. (Because it happens so fast). I can see where there may be confusion when I said there must be thought *and* significant time.  In this respect I may be wrong and I admit that.  For me, it really is time that makes the distinction.  

But either way, no one should have been offended by what I had said, seeing as how I made it clear that I was not degrading anyone's image or skill in general.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Aug 29, 2010)

So if I'm understanding this correctly, this is a photograph.  It has posed subjects that were deliberately grouped together for the express purpose of having a photo taken.








Which would make this a snapshot because there was no control over the subject and the composition was little more than an educated guess that was done in a spur of the moment.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 29, 2010)

By your definition, almost all photojournalism would be nothing more than snapshots.

edit
Maybe 'photojournalism' is the wrong word...  You know what I mean though.


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Awww...what happened to your high horse? I wanted to pet it.



The fact that you viewed me as being on a high horse indicates that you have undoubtedly misinterpreted every single one of my posts.  That is enough for me to realize that you are not worth responding to in this thread.  Please continue acting the way you have been. It's entertaining.  I must also point out that I find it hilarious that I am being compared to Petraio Prime, what with some of the other responses in this thread.


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

bentcountershaft said:


> So if I'm understanding this correctly, this is a photograph.  It has posed subjects that were deliberately grouped together for the express purpose of having a photo taken.


Yes.




bentcountershaft said:


> Which would make this a snapshot because there was no control over the subject and the composition was little more than an educated guess that was done in a spur of the moment.


Yes.



O|||||||O said:


> By your definition, almost all photojournalism would be nothing more than snapshots.


Yes. (I know what you meant)


There is nothing wrong with any of that though. This is what I mean when I said people should not get offended. Bentcountershaft, the photo of the bear is awesome. Calling it a snapshot (in my opinion) should not take away from the image itself. It is only a description of the circumstances in which the image was taken.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Aug 29, 2010)

Fair enough, and I was paying close enough attention to your previous posts to not be offended.  However I can't help but think that in the future you will constantly be misinterpreted due to the fact that you seem to be the only one going with your definition.  Unless every poster that comes here from here on out reads this thread so that they can understand your unique definition of the word snapshot.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 29, 2010)

I don't think the 'time' aspect of it is a very good qualifier of it being a snapshot.

I get what you're saying, but you do realize that your opinion is contradictory to almost everyone else...

I don't think you would find very many people that would call this a snapshot:
The Falling Soldier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I doubt he had much more than a half second or so to compose and take that picture (though, there are some that say it was staged).


To me, a 'snapshot' says more about the intent of the photo than anything else.
'Snapshots' would be pictures who's sole purpose is just to preserve the memory of some particular event - a birthday party or something.  That doesn't mean that they're bad, just that you weren't trying to convey some message with it.


I don't agree with the (common) use of 'snapshot' for a bad picture, and 'photo' or 'photograph' for a good one.

That's like saying that a point & shoot is not actually a camera.


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

bentcountershaft said:


> Fair enough, and I was paying close enough attention to your previous posts to not be offended.  However I can't help but think that in the future you will constantly be misinterpreted due to the fact that you seem to be the only one going with your definition.  Unless every poster that comes here from here on out reads this thread so that they can understand your unique definition of the word snapshot.


Thank you for understanding. 

It should never become an issue though because I have never (and will never) refer to someone's image on this forum as a snapshot when offering comments or criticism. I have only used the term in this thread specifically because that is what the thread is about.  I always refer to someone's image as an "image" or "picture" or "photo" because I am aware of the connotation of the word "snapshot". My entire point in posting in this thread was to offer my opinion to the OP. I know it got out of hand but I feel that I acted civilly in all of my posts.  I explained my opinion numerous times not to force it on anyone, only to clarify it to those who did not seem to understand.  I honestly don't know why I was attacked by several members here but I'm sure they had their reasons.


----------



## israel09 (Aug 29, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> To me, a 'snapshot' says more about the intent of the photo than anything else. 'Snapshots' would be pictures who's sole purpose is just to preserve the memory of some particular event - a birthday party or something.  That doesn't mean that they're bad, just that you weren't trying to convey some message with it.



EXACTLY!


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> I don't think the 'time' aspect of it is a very good qualifier of it being a snapshot.
> 
> I get what you're saying, but you do realize that your opinion is contradictory to almost everyone else...
> 
> ...


I completely understand your and others' viewpoint on the word.  (And yeah, I would call that image a snapshot)

I also agree that "snapshot" should not be used to indicate a bad picture and "photograph" to indicate a good picture. (But I have stated that multiple times in earlier posts.)

I know that most people don't agree with me but all I was doing was expressing my opinion.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 29, 2010)

Polyphony said:


> I also agree that "snapshot" should not be used to indicate a bad picture and "photograph" to indicate a good picture. (But I have stated that multiple times in earlier posts.)



I think 'snapshot' and 'photograph' being used in place of 'good' or 'bad' is what causes all of the confusion, and leads to threads like these...

It seems like most of the people on photography forums like to think that pictures have to be 'good enough' to be elevated to the sought-after level of 'photograph'.
EDIT> I think what they really mean in those cases is "art", but they just say 'photograph' instead. <EDIT

I don't really know how or why that started...  How some people can say that a picture isn't good enough to be called a photo...


By definition, all images made with a camera (and some made without a camera) are photographs.


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 29, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> I don't really know how or why that started...  How some people can say that a picture isn't good enough to be called a photo...
> 
> By definition, all images made with a camera (and some made without a camera) are photographs.



I don't know either. It really makes no sense. It doesn't matter if an image is taken with a 5dmkii or a camera phone, it's still a photograph.


----------



## AgentDrex (Aug 30, 2010)

Gone for one day...ONE day...didn't realize how controversial of a subject I had posed...thank you so much for all the insights/opinions/educated answers/guesses...now I am completely and oh so utterly confused...I guess that should be a lesson for me in the future...beware of the question before asking...but wasn't this so much fun?  people agreeing, disagreeing, getting upset, laughing...but it makes learning together so much fun...


----------



## gsgary (Aug 30, 2010)

AgentDrex said:


> Gone for one day...ONE day...didn't realize how controversial of a subject I had posed...thank you so much for all the insights/opinions/educated answers/guesses...now I am completely and oh so utterly confused...I guess that should be a lesson for me in the future...beware of the question before asking...but wasn't this so much fun?  people agreeing, disagreeing, getting upset, laughing...but it makes learning together so much fun...




It all adds to the fun, you can't beat a good argument


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 30, 2010)

While I don't feel like Gary's sample images were the best for demonstrating his intent (with the exception of the biking shot, which is awesome), but what you fail to realize Polyphony, is that *you're wrong.*

It doesn't matter which way you personally define a word, it doesn't make it true. For example, it doesn't mater how many people believe in a god, or many gods, it doesn't make god REAL. See?

So if you go up to a professional photographer, especially one that's still using film, and you say "These are wonderful snapshots". He/She'd probably do a double take, and then punch you in the face with a knife. 

tl;dr version: Polyphony, believe what you want, but you're wrong... Still.


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 30, 2010)

o hey tyler said:


> While I don't feel like Gary's sample images were the best for demonstrating his intent (with the exception of the biking shot, which is awesome), but what you fail to realize Polyphony, is that *you're wrong.*
> 
> It doesn't matter which way you personally define a word, it doesn't make it true. For example, it doesn't mater how many people believe in a god, or many gods, it doesn't make god REAL. See?
> 
> ...


When I first read this post, I thought to myself, "This guy is either 12 years old or has a mental disability."  

After reading this...


o hey tyler said:


> SWEET SNAPSHOT OMG LAWL


And this...


o hey tyler said:


> NICE SNAPSHOTS BRO :thumbup:



I've concluded that it's probably both.


Your response (the one that's not written like an immature child in size 7 bold font) is so completely incoherent that I would be embarrassed if I were you. You fail to comprehend what it is that I have been saying for pages and pages in this thread. The analogy that you make to believing in god is COMPLETELY false. What you fail to realize, "o hey tyler" is that *you're* wrong.  I won't even begin to explain why (which I can very easily) because I can predict your response: "(insert a line of childish internet acronyms and made up words)"

Anyone who read this thread in its entirety and has half a brain would realize that you have absolutely no clue about what you are talking about.


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 30, 2010)

white said:


> Disagree all you want. Doesn't change the fact that most photographers (i.e., those trying to improve their craft) will interpret "snapshot" as an insult. Additionally, it is impossible to take a photo without thought.


 
I haven't made it through the thread yet, but you sir are wrong. I generally end up taking several photos when I'm just trying to wake the camera up from sleep. :mrgreen:


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 30, 2010)

Polyphony said:


> When I first read this post, I thought to myself, "This guy is either 12 years old or has a mental disability."


 

See, you lept right into personal attacks.
Yet you play the victim. 
:er:

You can't have your high horse and eat it too.


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 30, 2010)

Polyphony said:


> A snapshot is any photograph that relies on timing of the subject.


 
I do a lot of posed/planned _photographs_ that rely on the timing of my subject. A lot of portrait work relies on the timing of the subject.


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 30, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Polyphony said:
> 
> 
> > When I first read this post, I thought to myself, "This guy is either 12 years old or has a mental disability."
> ...


I clearly stated in a previous post that I refrained from doing that unless it was done to me first. Which it was, as you can see. Sorry if you missed that.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 30, 2010)

o hey tyler said:


> While I don't feel like Gary's sample images were the best for demonstrating his intent (with the exception of the biking shot, which is awesome), but what you fail to realize Polyphony, is that *you're wrong.*
> 
> It doesn't matter which way you personally define a word, it doesn't make it true. For example, it doesn't mater how many people believe in a god, or many gods, it doesn't make god REAL. See?
> 
> ...


 Polyphony, please point out the personal attack.


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 30, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> Polyphony said:
> 
> 
> > A snapshot is any photograph that relies on timing of the subject.
> ...


I would call them snapshots then, not bad photos, snapshots.


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 30, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > While I don't feel like Gary's sample images were the best for demonstrating his intent (with the exception of the biking shot, which is awesome), but what you fail to realize Polyphony, is that *you're wrong.*
> ...


You must have failed to see the two quotes that I posted from him where actually searched for two of my threads in which I asked honest questions. He then proceeded to sarcastically comment at size 7 font in a clear attempt to be degrading. Hence, attack.


----------



## LaFoto (Aug 30, 2010)

To my mind, you're simply wrong, Polyphony, but as you keep insisting that you're being wrong is actually right, there is no chance for this discussion to ever end amicably. I look at this thread for yet another while, but I can see the lock looming at the horizon already...


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 30, 2010)

LaFoto said:


> To my mind, you're simply wrong, Polyphony, but as you keep insisting that you're being wrong is actually right, there is no chance for this discussion to ever end amicably. I look at this thread for yet another while, but I can see the lock looming at the horizon already...


You, like almost every other, fail to see that this is not a question of right or wrong. It's a question of opinion.  The OP asked the opinion of everyone on this board. I gave mine. I was then targeted and determined by you and others to be "wrong". _*I never once insisted *_(as you say I did)_* that "I am right and you are wrong"*_. I told you what I thought, and then why I thought what I thought. No one else has done the same. They have only stated that I am "wrong". All I have done is explained my opinion on the matter. If you fail to see that, it is your problem not mine.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 30, 2010)

Yeah Polyphony, what gives? You're the one attacking me. I was giving *YOU* compliments by your own definition. 

Did I fail to understand what you've been saying the entire time in this thread? Was I the only person who you think "didn't read your posts?" Well guess what, Matlock? It appears that EVERYONE that's arguing with you DIDN'T read your posts. BECAUSE NO ONE AGREES WITH YOU.

Me, childish? Maybe sometimes. Or perhaps you just fail to see that I am making a point using satire. 

But at least I'm not wrong, like you. Wrongy McWrong-pants.

Oh, and guess what? I didn't personally attack you either. You should probably do some research on what a personal attack is. While you are at it, you should google the definition of "snapshot" and how it applies to photography.


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 30, 2010)

Polyphony said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Polyphony said:
> ...


 
Good. We have that cleared up then. You're using the word wrong and you don't know the definition. I've even helped you out a bit with a little bit of bold on the important words from three of the most widely regarded dictionaries.



			
				Merriam Webster said:
			
		

> *Definition of SNAPSHOT*
> 
> 1
> *:* a *casual* photograph made typically by an *amateur* with a *small handheld camera*
> ...


 


			
				The Oxford English Dictionary said:
			
		

> *snapshot (snap·shot) *
> 
> 
> Syllabification:
> ...







			
				Cambridge Dictionary said:
			
		

> *snapshot noun *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 30, 2010)

o hey tyler said:


> Yeah Polyphony, what gives? You're the one attacking me. I was giving *YOU* compliments by your own definition


This is a lame attempt at redeeming your character. 



o hey tyler said:


> Did I fail to understand what you've been saying the entire time in this thread? Was I the only person who you think "didn't read your posts?" Well guess what, Matlock? It appears that EVERYONE that's arguing with you DIDN'T read your posts. BECAUSE NO ONE AGREES WITH YOU.



And because no one agrees with me I am wrong and should be forced to hide my opinion?



o hey tyler said:


> Me, childish? Maybe sometimes.
> But at least I'm not wrong, like you. Wrongy McWrong-pants.


You should have just left it at that.


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 30, 2010)

Village Idiot: Please explain to me how capturing the expression on a goalie's face as a soccer ball flies by his hands is "formal"

And Merriam Webster is making an assumption by saying "typically by an amateur with a small handheld camera". Which means according to this dictionary, that snapshots can be taken by professionals with very large tripod-mounted cameras (among other combinations of people and camera)

So far, all the dictionaries that you cited support my opinion.


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 30, 2010)

Polyphony said:


> You, like almost every other, fail to see that this is not a question of right or wrong. It's a question of opinion.


 
No it's not. Snapshot has a well defined meaning that's recorded in many official dictionaries. 

If the dictionaries says that a Cat is a small feline mamal of a certain classification, then you can't go around saying that a certain animal isn't a cat because it doesn't **** in a litter box and eat friskies.

That's like you're trying to make up your own definition to a word that already has a solidly defined definition.


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 30, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> Polyphony said:
> 
> 
> > You, like almost every other, fail to see that this is not a question of right or wrong. It's a question of opinion.
> ...


Please read the post just above yours.


----------



## robitussin217 (Aug 30, 2010)

I love all of you...


----------



## gsgary (Aug 30, 2010)

o hey tyler said:


> While I don't feel like Gary's sample images were the best for demonstrating his intent (with the exception of the biking shot, which is awesome), but what you fail to realize Polyphony, is that *you're wrong.*
> 
> It doesn't matter which way you personally define a word, it doesn't make it true. For example, it doesn't mater how many people believe in a god, or many gods, it doesn't make god REAL. See?
> 
> ...




Are these better snapshots :mrgreen:





Positioned especially to get the S shape of the track


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 30, 2010)

Polyphony said:


> Village Idiot: Please explain to me how capturing the expression on a goalie's face as a soccer ball flies by his hands is "formal"


 
Because that's the whole reason you're there. You're there to take photos. You're not there informally, casually, or as an amateur with a small handheld camera.

Same thing with portraiture that relies on timing from your subject. No where in any definition that I've seen have I read that a snapshot depends on the timing of you're subject.

You're just trying to pick a certain point from those definitions because you don't want to admit you're wrong and if you even dare to say that a DSLR with a large professional grade lens is a small handheld camera, then you're just being obtuse.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 30, 2010)

You know what, you're right Polyphony. I actually did just read all of your posts, and you are *SO CORRECT*. It's unbelievable. How did I not realize how all-encompassing the word "snapshot" is. I'm sorry for ever doubting you.
I'm sorry for even starting a fight with you. You're a way better photographer than me. I can just tell by your cool online handle.  Please, will you teach me how to get those dramatic slightly tilted horizons? Or those really blown out white areas in your photographs? I'm trying to learn the best I can. Because the past 3 years of experience with cameras hasn't really shown me how to do too much... All I am is some small town guy that takes photographs for newspapers in the area, and does graphic design. I'm nothing but a "snap shooter" I guess. Hopefully you can teach me how to make BEAUTIFUL SNAPSHOTS. Now hopefully I can use the size 7 font for a better purpose.

ALL HAIL POLYPHONY AND HIS INFINITE PHOTOGRAPHIC WISDOM!


----------



## LaFoto (Aug 30, 2010)

This is becoming more and more ridiculous. A lock is in order.


----------

