# The difference between a photo and a snapshot?



## kcvpr

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

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

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


----------



## robbins.photo

kcvpr said:


> A couple months ago I took a photography course at my local community college. During one of the lectures the topic of taking photos versus snapshots was discussed. Ever since then I have been creatively disturbed and can't come up with/ or have a difficult time coming up with ideas for my photos.
> 
> I find myself hesitating to take photos of sunsets and widely photographed landmarks or similar subject matter, because I feel like its too cliche or something like that. I can't figure out how to get past that...
> 
> I was hoping you guys had some ideas or experience with this issue. What makes a picture a photo and not a snap shot?



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

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


----------



## Fred von den Berg

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


----------



## Crashbox

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

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

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

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


----------



## 480sparky

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

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



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

That is not only a photo, but art.


----------



## Vtec44

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


----------



## kcvpr

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

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


----------



## SquarePeg

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


----------



## otherprof

Vtec44 said:


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


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


----------



## Vtec44

otherprof said:


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



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


----------



## otherprof

Vtec44 said:


> otherprof said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that the amount of thought behind the photo determines whether it achieves the level of "photograph."  Sometimes the photographer's knowledge, skills and superior or unusual equipment are necessary to solve a problem and achieve a certain result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well to be "thoughtful" you have to move beyond the technical aspect of photography to a point where you don't even think about it anymore, and it becomes second nature.  At that point, you have the freedom to create and tell stories instead of fumble over settings and be thoughtful about your shots.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## cherylynne1

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


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


----------



## chuasam

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


----------



## rlemert

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

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

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


----------



## otherprof

cherylynne1 said:


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


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


----------



## astroNikon

kcvpr said:


> Thanks for the thoughts guys, I appreciate it! I guess I have been taking "photos" mostly all along, just not getting very many keepers.
> 
> My other problem is figuring out what exactly it is that makes a photo good or not... I don't know how to explain it, something along the lines of not knowing how to critique my own photos. Like being able to tell if what I am shooting needs some fill light. Or when I'm editing, finding what needs to be burned/dodged or if my white balance is off or not.


post a photo of yours here.  One that you like.  
Let other critique it.  Learn from the critique.  Try to go back and retake the photo and improve upon it based on the critique (or something similar).


----------



## chuasam

I would rather see a snapshot of Jesus Christ than a thousand photographs of Kim Kardashian.


----------



## unpopular

It has nothing to do with quality, it has to do with intent and reception.

a snapshop is intended to augment memories, whereas a photograph must stand on it's own as an experience.

--
But, i dunno, maybe we should leave J.C. out of this...


----------



## chuasam

unpopular said:


> It has nothing to do with quality, it has to do with intent and reception.
> 
> a snapshop is intended to augment memories, whereas a photograph must stand on it's own as an experience.
> 
> --
> But, i dunno, maybe we should leave J.C. out of this...


The point is that even a snapshot can be worth far more than a photograph because the casual intent confers a certain honesty vs a photograph *cough Steve McCurry* that was made with careful thought.
a Snapshot of a historical figure is far more valuable than a carefully orchestrated portrait by a good photographer.


----------



## gsgary

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## table1349

The difference between a photo and a snap shot? 

Each individual persons perception.


----------



## gsgary

A snap shot and photo are the same thing, they are both records of what your eyes see at a set moment 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## MSnowy

Look at it this way on TPF you have the "like" option = snapshot or you take the time to write out a comment option = photo


----------



## Gary A.

For me the difference is all in the eye of the beholder. One person's snapshot is another's photograph.  A snapshot is a photograph that failed and the photograph is a snapshot which succeeded.  I think post can make a difference between a snap and a photo.


----------



## Achaicus

Gary A. said:


> I think post can make a difference between a snap and a photo.



This snapshot has post, so it must be a photograph.


----------



## bribrius

snapshots are usually better. If its thought and planned out you missed the moment and are making something that can be recreated.


----------



## bribrius

chuasam said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with quality, it has to do with intent and reception.
> 
> a snapshop is intended to augment memories, whereas a photograph must stand on it's own as an experience.
> 
> --
> But, i dunno, maybe we should leave J.C. out of this...
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that even a snapshot can be worth far more than a photograph because the casual intent confers a certain honesty vs a photograph *cough Steve McCurry* that was made with careful thought.
> a Snapshot of a historical figure is far more valuable than a carefully orchestrated portrait by a good photographer.
Click to expand...

agreed. some of the best photographs i will take in my life will be snapshots or by accident.


----------



## PropilotBW

A snapshot can still tell just as much of a story as a thoroughly planned shot.


----------



## Bebulamar

kcvpr said:


> A couple months ago I took a photography course at my local community college. During one of the lectures the topic of taking photos versus snapshots was discussed. Ever since then I have been creatively disturbed and can't come up with/ or have a difficult time coming up with ideas for my photos.
> 
> I find myself hesitating to take photos of sunsets and widely photographed landmarks or similar subject matter, because I feel like its too cliche or something like that. I can't figure out how to get past that...
> 
> I was hoping you guys had some ideas or experience with this issue. What makes a picture a photo and not a snap shot?



I don't think there is a different.


----------



## jcdeboever

I don't know about any of this. All I know is I bang my head against the wall a lot.


----------



## Solarflare

Snapshot in this context would refer to a photograph taken without thinking.

If you just come across something pretty, instantly make a photo, and right after move on, thats a snapshot.

Its possible that a snapshot is a great photograph, but most of them wont be great photographs, and very likely even if its a great photograph the photographer probably will miss it because its among a ton of bad photographs.


----------



## table1349

Solarflare said:


> Snapshot in this context would refer to a photograph taken without thinking.
> 
> If you just come across something pretty, instantly make a photo, and right after move on, thats a snapshot.
> 
> Its possible that a snapshot is a great photograph, but most of them wont be great photographs, and very likely even if its a great photograph the photographer probably will miss it because its among a ton of bad photographs.


Just another snapshot.


----------



## KenC

jcdeboever said:


> I don't know about any of this. All I know is I bang my head against the wall a lot.



I know, it feels good when you stop.  The same could be said about trying to place things in one of two categories (photo vs snapshot, art vs not art, etc.).  Everyone has a different opinion, there will always be a "gray area" and it won't change what any of us do anyway.


----------



## robbins.photo

gryphonslair99 said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Snapshot in this context would refer to a photograph taken without thinking.
> 
> If you just come across something pretty, instantly make a photo, and right after move on, thats a snapshot.
> 
> Its possible that a snapshot is a great photograph, but most of them wont be great photographs, and very likely even if its a great photograph the photographer probably will miss it because its among a ton of bad photographs.
> 
> 
> 
> Just another snapshot.
Click to expand...


Actually no, that is a photograph taken of the second flag raised on Mount Suribachi.  It was a planned photo event and the photo was taken by Joe Rosenthal.  Their are some snapshots of the raising of the first flag, taken by a Staff Sgt Lowry or possibly Lowery - can't remember the exact spelling.


----------



## waday

chuasam said:


> I would rather see a snapshot of Jesus Christ


Pastor says he took pictures of Heaven — but lost them when his phone was stolen


----------



## Achaicus

robbins.photo said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another snapshot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no, that is a photograph taken of the second flag raised on Mount Suribachi.  It was a planned photo event and the photo was taken by Joe Rosenthal.  Their are some snapshots of the raising of the first flag, taken by a Staff Sgt Lowry or possibly Lowery - can't remember the exact spelling.
Click to expand...


Rosenthal wrote about taking that snap. "Out of the corner of my eye, I had seen the men start the flag up. I swung my camera and shot the scene. That is how the picture was taken, and when you take a picture like that, you don't come away saying you got a great shot. You don't know."


----------



## 480sparky

robbins.photo said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Snapshot in this context would refer to a photograph taken without thinking.
> 
> If you just come across something pretty, instantly make a photo, and right after move on, thats a snapshot.
> 
> Its possible that a snapshot is a great photograph, but most of them wont be great photographs, and very likely even if its a great photograph the photographer probably will miss it because its among a ton of bad photographs.
> 
> 
> 
> Just another snapshot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually no, that is a photograph taken of the second flag raised on Mount Suribachi.  It was a planned photo event and the photo was taken by Joe Rosenthal.  Their are some snapshots of the raising of the first flag, taken by a Staff Sgt Lowry or possibly Lowery - can't remember the exact spelling.
Click to expand...



It's still a snapshot.

THIS:







is the 'posed' photo.  And plainly so.






The confusion arises because well after Rosenthal took the images (remember, he sent his film off to be developed and printed), he was asked about the photo he took.  He thought this was the image he was being asked about, and said it was posed.

Hence, everyone thinks the 'famous' shot was posed.  It was not.  Staged and planned, yes. But not posed.


----------



## jcdeboever

These type of threads always confuse me.


----------



## robbins.photo

Achaicus said:


> Rosenthal wrote about taking that snap. "Out of the corner of my eye, I had seen the men start the flag up. I swung my camera and shot the scene. That is how the picture was taken, and when you take a picture like that, you don't come away saying you got a great shot. You don't know."



The flag he took a picture of wasn't the first flag raised, it was the second.  They were raising a 2nd larger flag to replace the first.  I guess you could argue it was still a photo of "opportunity", but I think it's a pretty big stretch to call it a snapshot.


----------



## Gary A.

Achaicus said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another snapshot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no, that is a photograph taken of the second flag raised on Mount Suribachi.  It was a planned photo event and the photo was taken by Joe Rosenthal.  Their are some snapshots of the raising of the first flag, taken by a Staff Sgt Lowry or possibly Lowery - can't remember the exact spelling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rosenthal wrote about taking that snap. "Out of the corner of my eye, I had seen the men start the flag up. I swung my camera and shot the scene. That is how the picture was taken, and when you take a picture like that, you don't come away saying you got a great shot. You don't know."
Click to expand...

Hence the posing of the Marines in the later photo as the 'guarantee shot' that he got an image which recorded the beginning of the end of one of the bloodiest battles of WWII.  Rosenthal knew the battle was historic, perhaps at the time he didn't know how historic, but he knew it was important.  Not knowing, if the corner of his eye shot was any good, he posed a shot with the second and larger US flag as the 'guarantee shot'. I believe any photojournalist would have done the same.

FYI- on a per-foot basis, Iwo Jima may be one of the bloodiest of all time. The Japanese started with 22,000 men of which only 216 were taken prisoners (survived), the Marines suffered more than 26,000 casualties. Iwo Jima only emcompasses eight square miles.


----------



## Achaicus

It is with awareness of irony that I made that claim. Rosenthal said he didn't put much thought into the shot, which according to some in this thread makes it a snapshot not a photograph. I don't think anyone would call the result only a snapshot, unless you are trying to conform to some bourgeois idea that photographer's intent and attention makes a photograph, and if that is lacking it is a snapshot.

What is missing from this discussion is the connotation attached to the term snapshot that implies amateur. Snapshot or photograph is more about the perceived worth of the photographer than it is about the quality of the photograph. Oh you are well known so whatever you produce is photography. Who are you? All you take are snapshots.


----------



## robbins.photo

Achaicus said:


> It is with awareness of irony that I made that claim. Rosenthal said he didn't put much thought into the shot, which according to some in this thread makes it a snapshot not a photograph. I don't think anyone would call the result only a snapshot, unless you are trying to conform to some bourgeois idea that photographer's intent and attention makes a photograph, and if that is lacking it is a snapshot.
> 
> What is missing from this discussion is the connotation attached to the term snapshot that implies amateur. Snapshot or photograph is more about the perceived worth of the photographer than it is about the quality of the photograph. Oh you are well known so whatever you produce is photography. Who are you? All you take are snapshots.



Guess it all depends on your definition of the word "snapshot". When I look at a photograph and it's well composed to me that's a photograph.   It may not be a really great photograph, but if the composition is there, that's a photograph.

If I look at one that is poorly composed, that's a snapshot.  

The photographer may have spent a lot of time setting up the shot before hand or may have just grabbed a picture of opportunity and then spent time post processing it to get a well composed photo without a lot of distracting elements, etc.  But when they actually took the time or how much time they took to compose it is irrelevant to me, if it's well composed, it's a photograph.

For me at least I could care less who took the picture.

Other folks view the term differently I guess, but not much point in debating that I suppose.  Ask 10 people that same question and you'll probably get 15 different answers.


----------



## vintagesnaps

I think of a snapshot as the result of someone getting a subject or scene more or less in the viewfinder and taking a picture. A photograph involves a certain amount of thought and know-how in framing and composing images.

That can be done quickly; having done sports/events I learned how to frame shots in a fraction of a second while something's happening. It feels like less conscious thought to me, but I think what happens is with practice it becomes a more automatic procedure; I know what to do so don't have to think it about it so much.

But it's experience and expertise that I think enables a photographer to compose a photo even when done quickly. Someone could I suppose take some time to get a snapshot if waiting for the relatives to all get in the picture, having to move back to get them all in... (Or mostly in, people not having feet seems to be common enough in snapshots. lol) I think it's skill that makes a difference.


----------



## Braineack

jcdeboever said:


> These type of threads always confuse me.


A photo can be a snapshot, but a snapshot can be a photo.


----------



## TheLibrarian

My working definition is snapshots are informal happenstance things but doing street photography it is informal and happenstance so I don't like that definition. I think of a photo as some attempt at intentionally setting up a moment to remember or share which is much more difficult than being with friends or catching natural candids of your loved ones. Some people may not know/ see the difference between the two like a Tommy Hilfiger ad but that goes to show how successfully the photographer created a moment.


----------



## table1349

I do believe that George and Ira Gershwin have the answer to this whole sordid mess of a thread. 

_You say either and I say eyther,
You say neither and I say nyither
Either, eyther Neither, neyther
Let's call the whole thing off.

You like potato and I like potahto
You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto.
Let's call the whole thing off_

_You say laughter and I say larfter
You say after and I say arfter
Laughter, larfter after arfter
Let's call the whole thing off,

You like vanilla and I like vanella
You saspiralla, and I saspirella
Vanilla vanella chocolate strawberry
Let's call the whole thing off

I say father, and you say pater,
I saw mother and you say mater
Pater, mater Uncle, auntie let's call the whole thing off.

I like bananas and you like banahnahs
I say Havana and I get Havahnah
Bananas, banahnahs Havana, Havahnah
Go your way, I'll go mine_
*Let's call the whole thing off*


----------



## chuasam

waday said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would rather see a snapshot of Jesus Christ
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor says he took pictures of Heaven — but lost them when his phone was stolen
Click to expand...

Rubbish. I've had a Samsung S class phone. Images back up to the cloud.


----------



## waday

chuasam said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would rather see a snapshot of Jesus Christ
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor says he took pictures of Heaven — but lost them when his phone was stolen
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rubbish. I've had a Samsung S class phone. Images back up to the cloud.
Click to expand...

What if you're _in_ the cloud? Haha


----------



## jcdeboever




----------



## robbins.photo

waday said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waday said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would rather see a snapshot of Jesus Christ
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor says he took pictures of Heaven — but lost them when his phone was stolen
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rubbish. I've had a Samsung S class phone. Images back up to the cloud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if you're _in_ the cloud? Haha
Click to expand...

Then if you back yourself up do you create an evil twin?

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## table1349

jcdeboever said:


> View attachment 123410


I recommend SPF 50 containing either Titanium dioxide or zinc oxide.


----------



## waday

robbins.photo said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waday said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would rather see a snapshot of Jesus Christ
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor says he took pictures of Heaven — but lost them when his phone was stolen
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rubbish. I've had a Samsung S class phone. Images back up to the cloud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if you're _in_ the cloud? Haha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then if you back yourself up do you create an evil twin?
> 
> Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What if you are the evil one and you create a good twin?


----------



## robbins.photo

waday said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waday said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waday said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would rather see a snapshot of Jesus Christ
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor says he took pictures of Heaven — but lost them when his phone was stolen
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rubbish. I've had a Samsung S class phone. Images back up to the cloud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if you're _in_ the cloud? Haha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then if you back yourself up do you create an evil twin?
> 
> Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if you are the evil one and you create a good twin?
Click to expand...

Then I'd kill him just like I did the last good.. Umm.. I mean evil twin..

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## imagemaker46

My take on it, there is a photo in everything we see, sometimes it's just a point and shoot photo, may not be of interest to anyone else, but at the time you saw something. I see these as snap shots, the tourist shots out the car window. I've been spending a lot more time shooting the flowers in my garden, or my cats, they are nice images, I post them to instagram, throw a couple of filters at them, but I see them as snapshots, especially the phone shots. There is nothing wrong with them, they are still photos, I just don't take a lot of time shooting them. It's not work for me, it's relaxing.   When I am working, paid or not, I'm still just taking photos, but I think about them a little more, if someone asks me to take a picture of him and a buddy, that's a snapshot, didn't think about it, just pushed the button. Picture is a picture.


----------

