|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/25/2003 12:51:08 PM · #1 |
Hi all. On a recent Curret Challenge Thread, the question was raised about what is a snapshot versus what is not.
I remeber seeing someone define a snapshot as providing the viewer with no particular context as to why the image is "worth" viewing. (Note that I am not saying the image is not worth viewing, rather, there is nothing contextually assiting the viewer with making that determination).
If you have nothing to assist you on the artisitc side, you are then left to evaluate the technical merits of the shot. A snapshot could have strong composition, good lighting and focus, etc, but still leave you flat because you are not drawn into the image in any other way.
On the flip side, you can have a blurry, poorly cropped shot that captures a once in a lifetime moment.
Typically, however, snapshots get categorized as such when they fail both in the story telling and on the technical aspects.
There is no reason you can't take a good picture of Fluffy, your cat, but if you point your camera at the cat at any random moment without thought to what the point of the photo will be, then you are just creating a snapshot.
my $.02
|
|
|
|
09/25/2003 12:58:46 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by dsa157:
If you have nothing to assist you on the artisitc side, you are then left to evaluate the technical merits of the shot. A snapshot could have strong composition, good lighting and focus, etc, but still leave you flat because you are not drawn into the image in any other way.
|
I would never get past the poor subjectivity. If a photo has no subjective merit to me, I pass it by and don't even consider anything else. If the image did have good composition, lighting, focus, etc, I would probably not call it a shapshot because it would look like someone had put some effort into it.
I define shapshots as follows:
Photographs that are candidly taken with no consideration of photographic composition or technical issues... The photos have no objective other than to record some instant in time for nostalgic value and keepsake material.
And, yes, i expect that others have their own definitions, and no, you will not pick mine apart and change my mind on it :)
|
|
|
|
09/25/2003 01:10:59 PM · #3 |
David &John, I think that both your definitions are valid ways to define the difference between a snap and an artistic shot.
I tend to think of a snap as pretty much situational and with little compositional effort, other than to capture a particular moment.
Of course there are always exceptions to every rule. The occasional holiday snap may turn out to be quite good. But that usually is a fluke rather than the rule.
another $.02
|
|
|
|
09/25/2003 01:15:23 PM · #4 |
I just responded to a post in a perpendicular thread with this little rant on the subject:
A snapshot, to me and likely most of us, is a casual or incidental photo taken spontaneously, without deliberate forethought and often without or very minimal post-processing, usually capturing a moment in time of personal interest and with a lighter view of things.
Naturally, the subjects of such shots, more often than not, would tend to pertain to kids, family, pets, vacations, really, anything physically or emotionally close to the photographer, but don't have to be to be considered snapshots.
The main and most reasonable objection to the merit of the genre is the fact that it lends itself all too easily to a perception of clichée. In other words, the choice of subject along with a particular stance to it, should result in an image of particular and universal appeal, as opposed to one of general and predominantly personal value, if it is to be regarded as an artistic contribution to what is there already.
A snapshot meeting or exceeding these criteria, can and should, IMO, be catagorically considered within a classic genre of photography, even if taken with a 1950's Brownie box camera. ;-)
Message edited by author 2003-09-26 00:22:31. |
|
|
|
09/25/2003 01:32:25 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
In other words, the choice of subject along with a particular stance to it, should result in an image of particular and universal appeal, as opposed to one of general and predominantly personal value |
I think what zeuszen wrote here is the best point that a new photographer can take away from this discussion - try to make your photos appeal to someone other than yourself.
That doesn't mean you can't shoot for your own pleasure, but if you want the rest of us as an audience, try to have something interesting to say in the image.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2003 07:12:44 PM · #6 |
Details: Your subject should be placed, seated, or lying stably, with a feeling of calm to the shot.
Where does it say that if it was a snapshot or a staged shot that it wouldn't work. If you don't want to look at pictures of cats, dogs, flowers, tombstones, sunsets, insects, etc you don't have to.
Just submit your photo and you don't even have to vote ,or comment. People that complain about voting can just come back in a weeks time and get their results. No one is forcing you to vote.
If you want more then "good job -"10" , "nice snapshot", "funny", etc as a comment. Then maybe giving comments to others as you would like to receive them would help.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 06/08/2025 02:32:06 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/08/2025 02:32:06 AM EDT.
|
