# Snapshots and Universality



## amolitor (Jan 27, 2013)

Whenever I see the word "snapshot" busted out as a pejorative, my hackles go up. Even though I do it from time to time.

So, here's some definitions. If you're itching to disagree with me, this part is probably your best bet:

There's a property of a photograph which I will call _universality_ which is simply the degree to which it appeals to and is evocative for a wide range of people. None of us will have any difficulty thinking up photographs with a lot of universality. I am going to define a _snapshot_ as a photograph with a very low degree of universality. So, a snapshot is just a picture that is meaningless and uninteresting to "most people" or even "almost everyone". Of course a snapshot means something to whoever took it, it's a record of that time I was at that place, or my latte in that one cafe, or whatever. It's a snapshot because nobody else much cares.

Ok, so let's think about the kind of photograph that a lot of people on TPF hold up as a sort of gold standard, the professional portrait. We can lump in professional wedding photos, engagement shoots, and so on.

_These things are all snapshots too_. When you see a picture of 5 young men in champagne tuxedos, one of the men invariably barefoot, arms over one another's shouldersm all standing on the railroad tracks, acting like idiots, what do you think? You think "checkbox pseudo-artsy photograph of some groom's party from some wedding" If you're a TPF regular, you will probably instinctively evaluate a dozen criteria, to see how well it matches the generally accepted standard of how this photograph is made. What you do NOT do is say 'wow, I want that on my wall' or 'man, I gotta re-evaluate my life' or anything like that. Neither do you get the sense that you know these men, you get no sense of who they are or what they are like. You don't know those goombas and most of the time you're glad you don't know those guys. You don't care about those guys one iota more after seeing this image than you did before. In other words, the image has very low universality.

Still, these photographs are all fine stuff. These are the photographs people are paying for, and this class of professionals delivers them. There is no shame in this, it is a worthy profession. The point is that what the customer wants is snapshots. They don't give a fig about universality. They're not even, really, going to look at these pictures. The pictures are a talisman which serves to remind them of the day, that time, that event.

The deal with this sort of professional work isn't that it's not a snapshot, the deal is that it's a _very flattering_ snapshot if it's done well. It hits certain tropes and standards, so everyone who looks at it knows that we paid for a professional, and it makes us look hella good if I do say so myself, and it evokes memories very well, for us. The fact that it is, to everyone else on the world, a meaningless picture of some idiots  is irrelevant.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 27, 2013)

Cool story bro.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 27, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> Cool story bro.



Wow, you're not the _last_ person I would have figured for agreeing, but you were pretty down the list! Thanks!


----------



## Benco (Jan 27, 2013)

To paraphrase that a wee bit you're saying that a snapshot isn't neccessarily a bad photograph right?


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 27, 2013)

amolitor said:
			
		

> Wow, you're not the last person I would have figured for agreeing, but you were pretty down the list! Thanks!



I didn't agree. Actually, I didn't even read your post. 

Should have put tl;dr, my bad.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 27, 2013)

I actually avoided the good/bad distinctions quite carefully and deliberately throughout. I have my own ideas about what's good and bad, but that's a different discussion.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 27, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> I didn't agree. Actually, I didn't even read your post.
> 
> Should have put tl;dr, my bad.



Don't worry, I knew that. I should have put 'tyler, this is sarcasm!!!!1!!1!!!' in my post, my bad.


----------



## Benco (Jan 27, 2013)

In the context of 'snapshot' being used as a perjorative term then.


----------



## Designer (Jan 27, 2013)

Benco said:


> To paraphrase that a wee bit you're saying that a snapshot isn't neccessarily a bad photograph right?



You mean he could have said that in one short phrase?


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 27, 2013)

I like that :thumbup:

I just feel it's a shame the word "snapshot" has gotten such a black eye on here. Unless you are that glamour or wedding photgrapher, no one wants to take the time to help the everyday "snapshooter" improve. Example: If I buy my first DSLR to record, say aircraft.  I may not be interested in the "artsy" pattern the rivets make, but exposure, DOF, background clutter, angle of the shot (aka comp) are all important to me to make a better then average snapshot. The problem is, as soon as I post that aircraft for C&C, I'm told to move in and find that rivet pattern. 

I enjoy taking everyday snapshots of my hobbies, but posting them here for comment is a waste of time. Every shutter click doesn't have to be a wall hanger.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 27, 2013)

I think that the word snapshot in the way that it is used on this site connotes a lack of deliberation or active photographic "planning." Even photojournalists who photograph in the moment have to be aware of light, dark, composition etc...

So when someone says that a photograph looks like a snapshot they're basically saying that the photograph looks hurried, lacking any kind of creative or technical thinking on the part of the photographer. It's used as...I don't know if this is technically the right word...a homonym for "lacking technical and creative depth." At least that's how I see it. If everyone understands what someone is getting at when they make a statement in a certain context, I don't understand why it matters if the word chosen is exactly proper or not.

Symantics is a nasty business where nobody wins and everyone ends up arguing over political correctness.

Most of the time I'm too lazy to care about hurting feelings over silly little discrepancies like this. lol


----------



## Designer (Jan 27, 2013)

Frankly, I have not seen very many photographs of engagements or weddings of the type that you have included in your example that I really admire.

Are they technically good?  Sometimes.

Are they compositionally good?  Occasionally.

Are they cliche?  Almost always.

Are they artistic?  Very seldom.

You have nailed the concept of meaningless but universal snapshots.


----------



## Designer (Jan 27, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> It's used as...I don't know if this is technically the right word...a homonym for "lacking technical and creative depth."



I think the descriptor would be "synonym".  I agree completely with your definition.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 27, 2013)

Well, I think on TPF "snapshot" is used in a lot of ways, sometimes it just means "I don't like it".

I agree, rexbobcat, that generally what is meant is that the photograph appears to be hurried and carelessly made, and more generally "it looks like those pictures that the people who just got a camera make" which is perfectly fine and good. I got no problem with that notion. What I am trying to get it is: what IS it about those pictures that the newbs make that makes them look that way? 

I think the phrase "lacking in technical and creative depth" is pretty sound. The difference between the professional portrait and the snapshot then is that the first one has technical depth.

Which is, I think, a fair characterization. Professionals (of this sort -- we're leaving out the fashion guys, the art guys, the photojournalists, etc etc) have a lot of technical skills and techniques at their disposal which make their "snapshots" look flattering. Sharp images, pleasing poses, a dab of photoshop, some flattering light and we have a photograph the client will like. The creative depth is.. not substantial, generally. The technical depth is, and that's what the customer is paying for.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 27, 2013)

Designer said:
			
		

> I think the descriptor would be "synonym".  I agree completely with your definition.



Ah yeah, I got 'em mixed up. Lol


----------



## manaheim (Jan 27, 2013)

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


----------



## runnah (Jan 27, 2013)

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


----------



## amolitor (Jan 27, 2013)

Well.

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

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

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

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


----------



## paigew (Jan 27, 2013)

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

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


----------



## runnah (Jan 27, 2013)

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

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


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 27, 2013)

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

_Like every combat photographer....EVER


----------



## paigew (Jan 27, 2013)

runnah said:


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



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


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 27, 2013)

paigew said:


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



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


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 27, 2013)

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

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

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

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


----------



## Benco (Jan 27, 2013)

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

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

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


----------



## manaheim (Jan 27, 2013)

amolitor said:
			
		

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



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

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

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

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


----------



## paigew (Jan 27, 2013)

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


----------



## Designer (Jan 28, 2013)

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


----------



## runnah (Jan 28, 2013)

Designer said:


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



Blasphemy!


----------



## manaheim (Jan 28, 2013)

paigew said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## paigew (Jan 28, 2013)

manaheim said:


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



okay so that means what? I'm not really getting where you are going? If you take a bad ass photo of your grandma knitting in the gorgeous natural light of your living room...its a snapshot (for lack of better word). But does it have to be done hastily and without thought?


----------



## KenC (Jan 28, 2013)

Andrew's definition is as good as any other, that is, it is self-consistent and allows one to categorize most photos if one wants to (there will always be a gray area in any definition).

I agree with those who commented that the term is used on here in place of thoughtful criticism, to mean either that a photo is technically very badly done, or sometimes that it is a photo of someone's kid or something else that has meaning only to very few people.  Obviously, the second is consistent with Andrew's definition and the first is not, but that's the way it is used on here most often.  It would be better to point out some specific technical flaws in the first case and just to comment on lack of universal interest in the second, rather than just saying "it's a snapshot."


----------



## amolitor (Jan 28, 2013)

I'm not really trying to change language, I just want people to think a bit and to realize that there's sometimes a bit less daylight between this one thing and that other thing.

Benco, your definition of snapshot is much closer to the original, and fits the word much better, but I think it has largely falled out of use.


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 28, 2013)

After all my time here, I *STILL* don't understand why there needs to be labels at all.
All "photographs" are "Pictures"
All "Pictures" are "Photographs"
If you enjoy taking *EITHER* of the above, You're a "Photographer"
They are all taken with the love of one hobby "Photography"

I would consider it snobbish to have the need to label such things.


----------



## runnah (Jan 28, 2013)

Rick58 said:


> I would consider it snobbish to have the need to label such things.



Like I said before just a way for people with $20k worth of gear to feel better than those with a point and shoot.

The art world is full of vicious, nasty people who only strive to put other people down and be snobs.


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 28, 2013)

runnah said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > I would consider it snobbish to have the need to label such things.
> ...




Labels: 

Compare Photography to Painting

Are you only a "painter" if you use $50 brushes?
Are you only a "painter" if you paint for a living?
Take someones very first painting that truely an abomination. Is it not still a painting?

vs.

Are you only a "photographer" if you have a $6,000 camera?
Are you only a "photographer" if you photograph for a living?
Take someones very first picture that is truely an abomination, Is it not still a photograph?

Is a snapshot not a photograph and are they both not merely pictures


I would like someone to explain these differences


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 28, 2013)

a casual photograph made typically by an amateur with a small handheld camera  Snapshot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
**
a photograph taken without the use of professional equipment  snapshot - definition of snapshot by Macmillan Dictionary
**
an informal photograph taken quickly, typically with a small handheld camera  Definition of snapshot - photograph, photography and investigation (British & World English)
**
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&#8212;out of focus or poorly framed or composed.  Common snapshot subjects include the events of everyday life, such as  birthday parties and other celebrations; sunsets; children playing;  group photos; pets; tourist attractions and the like.
 The snapshot concept was introduced to the public on a large scale by Eastman Kodak, which introduced the Brownie box camera  in 1900. Kodak encouraged families to use the Brownie to capture  moments in time and to shoot photos without being concerned with  producing perfect images. Kodak advertising urged consumers to  "celebrate the moments of your life" and find a "Kodak moment."

 The "snapshot camera" tradition continues with inexpensive point-and-shoot digital cameras and camera phones that fully automate flash, ISO, focus, shutter speed, and other functions, making the shooting of a good-quality image simple. Expert photographers, who are better able to control the focus point, may use shallow depth of field  may achieve more pleasing images by blurring the background and making  the subject stand out. Other photographers consider these cameras the  purest form of photographic instrument in providing images with the  characteristics that distinguish photography from other visual media -  its ubiquity, instantaneity, multiplicity and verisimilitude.[SUP][1][/SUP]      Snapshot (photography) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**
an informal photograph, especially one taken quickly by a hand-held camera. Snapshot | Define Snapshot at Dictionary.com

------------------------------------

The term Snapshot apparently originated from Kodak, in the Brownie Box camera days. "capture  moments in time and to shoot photos without being concerned with  producing perfect images." (See WIKI entry above)

My definition of Snapshot is basically what Rexbobcat wrote...  along the lines of a image taken with no thought given to background, DOF, exposure, composition and framing, etc....  just pick up the camera and shoot. Usually this type of image is taken by beginners that have not absorbed any of the basics... because once you start learning the basics, it is hard to ignore them... you use them almost unconsciously.

If the image looks like it was taken without any thought put into it.. I will continue to call it a Snapshot. I think this semantic nonsense is taking something simple, and going overboard with it.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 28, 2013)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> a casual photograph made typically by an amateur with a small handheld camera  Snapshot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> **
> a photograph taken without the use of professional equipment  snapshot - definition of snapshot by Macmillan Dictionary
> **
> ...



And boom goes the dynamite.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 28, 2013)

Actually, Rick, the $50 brushes ARE the cheap ones 

Photography has always been rife with internal schisms (as has painting), and a powerful need to justify itself (which painting generally has NOT). The effect is that the schisms tend to result in factions trying to throw the other factions to the wolves. "Those guys are not doing REAL photography!!" is a constant refrain, whereas painters have always been "those guys might be painters, but they suck!"


----------



## KenC (Jan 28, 2013)

Rick58 said:


> Are you only a "painter" if you use $50 brushes?
> Are you only a "painter" if you paint for a living?
> Take someones very first painting that truely an abomination. Is it not still a painting?
> 
> ...



Rick, this depends on the definitions of "painter," "painting," "photographer" and "photograph."  One can define these words to come out with any possible combination of answers to these questions.  That's why I like to avoid discussing what the definition of any term is; defining it puts a lot of things into categories, and not necessarily the way the definer would like.  It's only worth defining a term if you need to make decisions based on it.

I'm not criticizing Andrew's post, which I think was directed more to a discussion of how we use the term on here.  I think we probably shouldn't, first of all as I mentioned earlier because it isn't helpful, and second because we don't have an accepted definition, so what does it mean when someone says it?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 28, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you disagree?


----------



## amolitor (Jan 28, 2013)

Charlie, I got no problem with anything you said. "snapshot" is a word that means many things to many people, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Just to prod your brain a little, give you something to think about:

What about a photograph that was taken without thought or care, maybe the dog just knocked the camera off the table, which photograph happens to be an exact duplicate of (pick your favorite photograph ever)?


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 28, 2013)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> Do you disagree?



What? No, that was an exclamation of concurrence.

It's kind of hard to argue against a dictionary.


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 28, 2013)

Yeah, this ball just keeps bouncing and at the end of the day, what does it really matter.
I made reference earlier to war photography. Are they photographers because they are getting paid, taking mere snapshots, by Charlies definition...And, what happens when that "snapshot" make the cover of Time magazine. Is it then a photograph?
Like I said, the ball keeps bouncing and what does it really matter.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 28, 2013)

amolitor said:
			
		

> What about a photograph that was taken without thought or care, maybe the dog just knocked the camera off the table, which photograph happens to be an exact duplicate of (pick your favorite photograph ever)?



Outliers shouldn't influence the majority.

I could come up with high unlikely hypothetical situations to basically find inconsistencies in probably any argument.

And what I mean by highly unlikely is that the chance of it happening is so infinitesimally small as to be unmeasurable. 

"What if my dog mated with my cat? Does that change your mind on blah blah blah...etc..."


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 28, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Charlie, I got no problem with anything you said. "snapshot" is a word that means many things to many people, and there's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Just to prod your brain a little, give you something to think about:
> 
> What about a photograph that was taken without thought or care, maybe the dog just knocked the camera off the table, which photograph happens to be an exact duplicate of (pick your favorite photograph ever)?



Strange things do happen... and if a accidental shot emulates a well thought out shot.. then I would call it coincidence. IF that ever happens..... I will vote for that DOG to be president also!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 28, 2013)

Rick58 said:


> Yeah, this ball just keeps bouncing and at the end of the day, what does it really matter.
> I made reference earlier to war photography. Are they photographers because they are getting paid, taking mere snapshots, by Charlies definition...And, what happens when that "snapshot" make the cover of Time magazine. Is it then a photograph?
> Like I said, the ball keeps bouncing and what does it really matter.



I suspect many war correspondents would be offended by your calling their work "Snapshots"! They risk their lives for their images... and yes, most probably still apply some journalist skill and guidelines to them.. even in the frenetic shooting that would occur under fire.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 28, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie, I got no problem with anything you said. "snapshot" is a word that means many things to many people, and there's nothing wrong with that.
> ...



We can all make up ridiculous hypotheses all day long to try and make our points... but does it prove anything?


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 28, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...



It proves we have a vivid imagination. 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## amolitor (Jan 28, 2013)

Making up ridiculous hypotheses and seeing how they fit in with our ideas is a pretty substantial part of a thing called inductive reasoning, which is how we do most of our thinking, it turns out.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 28, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



I think your mustache is imaginary.. you photoshopped it, didn't you?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 28, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Making up ridiculous hypotheses and seeing how they fit in with our ideas is a pretty substantial part of a thing called inductive reasoning, which is how we do most of our thinking, it turns out.



I will concede that we often use comparative analysis in inductive reasoning... but to use your DOG incident as an example...



amolitor said:


> What about a photograph that was taken without thought or care, maybe the dog just knocked the camera off the table, which photograph happens to be an exact duplicate of (pick your favorite photograph ever)?



*Dog knocks camera off of table... camera actuates! Image is identical to best photo even made by man (It sold for a Billion Dollars)! 

Therefore dog is an expert photographer, and a masterful artist.

Therefore ALL dogs must be expert photographers and masterful artists!
*
SO you see.. when Amolitor gets involved in philosophical discussions on some aspect of photography... photography Goes to the DOGS!  

Lol!  (yes.. joking!)


----------



## amolitor (Jan 28, 2013)

Excellent use of induction reasoning to create a hypothesis. Let us proceed:

- Now all we need is another dog to test, and, hmm. This is not panning out.
- So it turns out that ALL dogs are NOT expert photographers and masterful artists. What could be going on? Let's try the same dog a second time. Gosh, even THIS one isn't an expert photographer OR a masterful artist.
- What could be going on here? Maybe it's not about dogs at all, but about something else. Cameras? Photography?

Does it say something about photography itself, that a randomly generated "snapshot" could actually be a "good photograph" for pretty much any definition of "good photograph"?

This pretty much is not true for painting, or sculpture, or theater, or, or, or. What's going on here?


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 28, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



You cant photoshop that level of awesomeness. 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## amolitor (Jan 28, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> You cant photoshop that level of awesomeness.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2



Trust me, I know. I tried to "enhance" my moustache, and broke my photoshop. Now I have to use gimp.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 28, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Excellent use of induction reasoning to create a hypothesis. Let us proceed:
> 
> - Now all we need is another dog to test, and, hmm. This is not panning out.
> - So it turns out that ALL dogs are NOT expert photographers and masterful artists. What could be going on? Let's try the same dog a second time. Gosh, even THIS one isn't an expert photographer OR a masterful artist.
> ...



I would say a massive amount of luck would have to be a large part of your hypothesis. And I don't believe luck will ever replace skill and knowledge.


----------



## pic_chick (Jan 28, 2013)

maybe the answer to fair and usefully CC is an outline of importences as in start with the FS expose AP OOF ect then look at the framing crop tilt and light then last after all the rest it's artfulness and meaning.

We are all here to learn and grow what Our subject choose is should be the last to matter


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 28, 2013)

I think we should all grow mustaches.


----------



## runnah (Jan 28, 2013)

If an infinite number of dogs knocked an infinite number of camera over one would produce a masterpiece.


----------



## skieur (Jan 28, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> I think that the word snapshot in the way that it is used on this site connotes a lack of deliberation or active photographic "planning." Even photojournalists who photograph in the moment have to be aware of light, dark, composition etc...
> 
> So when someone says that a photograph looks like a snapshot they're basically saying that the photograph looks hurried, lacking any kind of creative or technical thinking on the part of the photographer. It's used as...I don't know if this is technically the right word...a homonym for "lacking technical and creative depth." At least that's how I see it. If everyone understands what someone is getting at when they make a statement in a certain context, I don't understand why it matters if the word chosen is exactly proper or not.
> 
> ...



You are absolutely correct.  That is the basic definition of a snapshot....hurried, and I would add no attention to background, detail, lighting, framing, etc.  Literally just point and shoot.  That is WHY it is used in a pejoritive manner by pros and serious enthusiasts.

skieur


----------



## amolitor (Jan 28, 2013)

I am pleased to see that I was able to make a few people think about these things a bit. That's pretty much the best one can hope for with this sort of thing.


----------



## runnah (Jan 28, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I am pleased to see that I was able to make a few people think about these things a bit. That's pretty much the best one can hope for with this sort of thing.



I will have you know I watched an hour of day time television to reverse the effects.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 28, 2013)

It's the best way to keep your mind clear. Fill it up with thinkin', then rinse thoroughly.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 28, 2013)

Beginner photographers would probably say that William Eggleston and Stephen Shore take snap shots


----------



## runnah (Jan 28, 2013)

gsgary said:


> Beginner photographers would probably say that William Eggleston and Stephen Shaw take snap shots



Do not GIS either name at work...lots of boob and wang.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 28, 2013)

runnah said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Beginner photographers would probably say that William Eggleston and Stephen Shaw take snap shots
> ...



. Now i have to... Nothing better than boob and wang during downtime.... Except maybe sleep. 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## gsgary (Jan 28, 2013)

runnah said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Beginner photographers would probably say that William Eggleston and Stephen Shaw take snap shots
> ...


----------



## squirrels (Jan 28, 2013)

Google Image Search 
Runnah's warning came too late for me :meh:


----------



## Benco (Jan 28, 2013)

Rick58 said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Rick58 said:
> ...



It's not the painters you need to worry about in the art world, they're just fine. It's those conceptual and installation artists that are the problem, damn their eyes and limbs.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 28, 2013)

Benco said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...




Like this load of ******** 'An Oak Tree', Michael Craig-Martin | Tate, we have a friend on the Arts Council that deal with modern art this is his favourite piece, i asked him what happens when the water evaporates ? he said one of the assistants at the gallery refils it, so i said it is no longer his piece of work


----------



## runnah (Jan 28, 2013)

gsgary said:


> Like this load of ******** 'An Oak Tree', Michael Craig-Martin | Tate, we have a friend on the Arts Council that deal with modern art this is his favourite piece, i asked him what happens when the water evaporates ? he said one of the assistants at the gallery refils it, so i said it is no longer his piece of work



Yeah that isn't art, that is a shelf that someone sold with a metric ton of BS.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 28, 2013)

runnah said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Like this load of ******** 'An Oak Tree', Michael Craig-Martin | Tate, we have a friend on the Arts Council that deal with modern art this is his favourite piece, i asked him what happens when the water evaporates ? he said one of the assistants at the gallery refils it, so i said it is no longer his piece of work
> ...



My partners sister is a little bit better Christine Gornowicz: Works


----------



## Dikkie (Feb 4, 2013)

Very nice thread. Just read the first page. 
I'll reply when I've got more time. 

But the idea behind the professionally made snapshot and the universality of an image, is an original, good way of lateral thinking.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 4, 2013)

I really doubt that the idea is all that original. It's just a synthesis of other ideas I've read, most likely, and I might have outright lifted it from someone and forgotten the source. I'm old, so I don't really know where most of the stuff in my head originated, but it usually originated somewhere outside my head.

But, thanks!


----------



## fokker (Feb 4, 2013)

Interesting thread, just read the whole thing and one word jumped out at me from cgipson's post with the dictionary definitions - INTENT. If you intend to take a snapshot, you have taken a snapshot. If you intend to take a photograph then you have taken a photograph.

"A *snapshot is popularly defined as a photograph that is "shot" spontaneously and quickly, most often without artistic or journalistic intent."


*


----------



## Dikkie (Feb 4, 2013)

Rick58 said:


> After all my time here, I *STILL* don't understand why there needs to be labels at all.
> All "photographs" are "Pictures"
> All "Pictures" are "Photographs"
> If you enjoy taking *EITHER* of the above, You're a "Photographer"
> ...


You can label anything, just to know what you're talking about, doesn't make it bad...

Some people label color vs black and white photographs. Or landscape, or people, or... like the galleries on this forum are categorised aswel.
Some people label snapshots and label other kinds of photos. It does not mean that snapshots are bad.
It's a pejorative way, yes. But that was not the point of this discussion.  

The thing is that if you want to "define" the word snapshot, a lot of people have different ideas about it.
And the idea that the OP is giving, is quite nice. It's about professionally made photographs. Not the most direct type of photograph that is common sense when thinking about snapshots. 

The idea of universality has a range. It's like the depth of field. 
It radiates.


----------



## Dikkie (Feb 5, 2013)

Rick58 said:


> Yeah, this ball just keeps bouncing and at the end of the day, what does it really matter.
> I made reference earlier to war photography. Are they photographers because they are getting paid, taking mere snapshots, by Charlies definition...And, what happens when that "snapshot" make the cover of Time magazine. Is it then a photograph?
> Like I said, the ball keeps bouncing and what does it really matter.


It does matter that the ball stops bouncing and that everyone stops arguing against, for * sake.

It matters that the ball keeps on rolling. Leave your mind open, let the light come in your camera, let blood flow through your brains.

The most common way what people think about snapshots is like: a professional photographer looking at a lousy image will call it a snapshot, a n00b looking at a professional's photograph will call it a photograph. That is mostly technically spoken or food for the elite. But that's not the point here...

A snapshot is not about how technically the photograph has been made in this case. It's about the *'universality'*. That keyword is the main subject that most people haven't read in the OP's post. Most people just read the word 'snapshot' and the negative thought around it.

A war photograph that is made by accident, but on the right time on the right location, can be done technically wrong, but can have such an emotional value for anyone on the planet, in a way you cannot say it is a snapshot. 
A wedding photographer that shoots a couple by purpose, so technically perfect, but without any emotional value to any other person at the other side of the planet, you can call a snapshot. For the married couple, it's family and friends, it can be a photograph. *An image can be a snapshot AND/OR a photograph, depending on who's watching it.*


----------



## jefflawsonn (Feb 21, 2013)

As per my opinion, I think that the word snapshot in the way that it is used on this site connotes a lack of deliberation or active photographic "planning." Even photojournalists who photograph in the moment have to be aware of light, dark, composition etc...


----------

