what's the difference between a photograph and a snapshot?

[Gato Moteado]

i think about this a lot. having studied photography in college, i thought that i was a photographer and that all my images were fine art photographs and that snapshots were lazy or random shots, with little or no intention or thought about the final image, made at family gatherings or on vacations, etc.

my opinions on this have evolved, especially since i've been trying to hone my wildlife photography skills over the last few years. now i think a snapshot is, or can be, a valid photograph, but instead of always being a lazily made random image, I see it as an attempt to catch an instant in time, where both luck and good instincts come into play. plenty of wildlife photographers are shooting 10 or 20 frames a second hoping to get at least one "keeper" image, where they've turned a split second in the life of a wild animal, whose actions cannot be controlled or reliably predicted, into a two-dimensional work of art, both technically and artistically. "spray and pray" is what we call it...what better way is there to say "snapshot"? contrast that with a landscape, portraiture, real estate, product or fine art photographer, who has a vision of the final image in mind and spends a lot of time, possibly hours, manipulating the subject and scene, camera angle, exposure settings, white balance, etc and adjusting lighting (or waiting for the perfect natural light), in order to capture exactly what they are envisioning.

most photo-journalistic work, in my opinion, are snapshots. for example...here's one of the most famous works of photojournalism...the photographer certainly had little to no time to get into position, set the perfect aperture and shutter speed and focus. he basically just reacted quickly to what was happening around him.



here's a shot of mine...certainly one of the best photographs i've ever taken in my life. i had some instincts telling me that the squirrel monkeys were going to do something interesting and i had a pretty good idea of where it would happen, but once it happened, i had just a couple seconds to make the shot. in that time, i had to determine who was the subject, get the single focal point over his/her nearest eye (and really i was at the mercy of the position of the single point since i had no time to adjust its position in the viewfinder), acquire focus, brace myself (wasn't using a tripod that day) and shoot. it's a snapshot.



on the other hand, for this shot, i had a clear image in my mind of the photograph i wanted to create. the subject was standing still so i felt like i had time to set things up. i had my camera on a tripod, i carefully set my shutter speed and aperture, took some time composing because i didn't feel as pressured to hurry, adjusted the position of the single focus point and took the shot. i would not consider this photo a snapshot.



so, i'm interested in hearing everyone else's opinions on the subject of "photograph vs snapshot"

[hlthe2b]

1. I think most people take snapshots, but occasionally get "lucky" and it turns out so well that

it might well be considered a photograph. But, with the really high-quality cameras on cell phones and their added editing features, the line is being blurred a bit. And some might say the two are interchangeable.

But, yes, I consider a photograph to be a more "considered and "set-up" capture than a mere snapshot. Artistic often as yours posted here. Pic number 1 like many from professional photographers might have been spontaneous and "lucky," but the skill of the photographer set it up well and it is anything but a mere snapshot.

My thoughts...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. Photographs are made. Snaps are taken. Snaps get "wow so good" on FB, photographs not so much

Most people have no conception of what makes a good photograph, beyond "my goofy friend was smiling".

Show them two photos, one noticeably blurry, over-exposed, horizon tilted, post growing out of a head. The other is sharp, clear, detail in highlights and shadows, attention paid to details in all parts of the frame.

The blurry one will get raves because there is a puppy in it. Excuse me, I'm not cool enough to say "pupper"?

[Ferrets are Cool]

3. There was NOTHING easy about that first shot.

Great "street" photography is extremely difficult to pull off. The great ones (photogs) make it look easy.

[Gato Moteado]

5. i didn't mean to imply that it was easy...

...but i read his account of the shot a while back and he was there to capture something else and that kiss just happened and he had a split second to react and get the shot. there's just no way to set up for a shot like that if you don't know it's gonna happen, and there's a fair amount of luck involved if you get something good. i'd still say it was a snapshot, and i don't think a snapshot is a bad thing.

[Ferrets are Cool]

10. It's ok for us to disagree. I consider Bresson to be the father of street photography...

and would never think of his work as snapshots. It's ok if other do so.

"To take a photograph is to align the head, the eye and the heart. It's a way of life"
- Henri Cartier-Bresson
?cb=1594071001

[usonian]

4. I'm a snapshooter when I'm being opportunistic, and a photographer

when I have a moment to compose, check lighting and choose settings.

I am almost always opportunistic, but sometimes I have a specific agenda.

Lately, I have been taking pictures of manzanitas, which abound on my property.
That's photography personified, even if, like the great Ansel Adams, I am subject to the vagaries of light.

But opportunism is always there. Last evening, chasing the rainbow, I later found some amazing clouds, and the diffuse light around sunset made the manzanitas just glow in ways I hadn't seen before.

(I posted the rainbow. I'll post the others if I remember)

Opportunism favors awareness of what's around oneself, and sometimes a "sixth sense" of that.

You know it if you have it.

Not being able to live in Yosemite National Park, I cruise the webcams run by the Yosemite Conservancy.
I had to snap this because the link is live (and mighty boring at night!)


The live link is here: This will change.


Credit to Yosemite Conservancy ( https://yosemite.org/ )

I once had the fortune to stay a bit, and it snowed. Very intentional shooting.

And also, I had some dumb luck.

[MLAA]

6. I agree with your definition.

And I love both your snapshot of the monkey hijinx and the photo of the beautiful flamingo.

[Gato Moteado]

19. well, thank you...

...i get lucky now and then.

[William Seger]

7. To me, a snapshot is just an unplanned photograph

... which, just like a planned photograph, might or might not have artistic merit.

[ManiacJoe]

24. This tends to be my leaning, too.

The skill level of the photographer can easily elevate a snapshot due to the reduction in time needed for planning.

[AndyS]

8. Just a note:

The first picture taken on the day WWII ended (Japan surrendered) was staged. The photographer saw the two make that kiss but missed the instant. He then approached the couple, strangers to each other, and asked them to repeat it for his camera. It's reported that the two enthusiastically agreed! That gave the photographer the opportunity to choose the angle for best protrail.

So, 'photograph snapshot'?

As a widlife photographer I can't control the animal but I can control the environment. I know the local deer tend to graze late in the day. I set my blind such that the deer face into the sun or if not I can startle them into turning toward the sun (my blind). Then I shoot 5-10 frames per second to avoid a blink or the snort that looks like a sneeze that they make when startled. For birds in flight I try to put the sun and the wind behind me knowing that they always take off into the wind and front lighting shows well. In both cases I sometimes paint a catch light into the eye.

Again 'photograph or snapshot'?

I also do studio and table top photography somtimes called 'product photography'.

For me, it is more the intent when you pick up the camera. Skill levels vary so some well planned and intentioned images present less well but there's still a difference between those and Holiday gatherings.

It's like the difference between cooking and baking; if you bake follow the recipe, if you cook follow your instinct. Either can produce spectacular results.

[Gato Moteado]

15. from everything i've read, alfred eisenstaedt's photo was not staged,

though, i believe some photographer or photographers did stage the same shot some time later.

eisenstaedt's words from the linked article:

“I saw a sailor running along the street grabbing any and every girl in sight… I was running ahead of him with my Leica looking back over my shoulder but none of the pictures that were possible pleased me. Then suddenly in a flash, I saw something white being grabbed. I turned around and clicked the moment the sailor kissed the nurse. If she had been dressed in a dark dress I would never have taken the picture. If the sailor had worn a white uniform - the same. I took exactly four pictures. It was done within a few seconds.” He said. The contrast between his dark uniform and her white dress is what gives the picture the extra impact.

https://aboutphotography.blog/blog/2020/3/27/v-j-day-in-times-square-by-alfred-eisenstaedt-story-behind-the-photograph

[AndyS]

16. You are no doubt right, it was long ago that I read the account on which I based

my comment. Still, using either account, the photo wasn't pure happenstance. In one it was a re-enactment and in the other it was a repetitive act allowing some prep and an idea of the finished image. To me the salient point is that Eisenstaedt was there with purpose: to capture the emotion of a war ending. What that image would be or even if he could capture one was not predetermined but he was looking for SOMETHING. The same is true for your monkey picture. For the rest of us it could be a sign of winter or the end of the road. There is a difference between wandering aimlessly with a camera and having a mindset or a 'mission' however nebulous. In my case the former usually results in a blank SD card.

[Gato Moteado]

18. i agree with you completely....

...and your last two sentences really said it all!

but, i think the whole point of my OP was that i revised my own definition of (and attitude toward) what a snapshot is. while eisenstadt had a purpose that day, he still had to react to what was going on around him until a moment presented itself, and then quickly point and shoot and hope for the best. in my mind he was "spraying and praying" as much as one of us might if we are shooting a moving or unpredictable subject that unexpectedly presented itself, with no time to check our settings or make adjustments.

[eppur_se_muova]

9. I thought it was just the price of the camera. nt

[MichaelSoE]

11. This snap and the story behind it

One of the greatest sport photos and it was a snap. 1 shot and luck.
This essay goes through it all.
https://slate.com/culture/2015/05/ali-liston-50th-anniversary-the-true-story-behind-neil-leifers-perfect-photo.html

I had always wanted to purchase a print signed by the photographer but only reprints signed by Ali find their way onto the market. I always thought it strange that prints signed by the subject and not the photographer are valued more.

[Gato Moteado]

12. one of the greatest snaps ever!

what an amazing thing for a photographer to have been ringside that night.

[Gato Moteado]

13. rooney's is the shot i remember best...

...probably because the grainy B&W shot captured a certain emotion that stuck with me, but leifer's shot was a snapshot that was a real work of art. here's my favorite part of that great article, regarding herb scharfman, the great photographer who was in the wrong place:

"Leifer didn’t miss that day, and he also got lucky. If Leifer hadn’t chosen the opposite side as Scharfman, he would’ve been stuck shooting toward Ali’s back at the big moment.* But when Liston fell, he fell in front of Leifer, not Scharfman. “It didn’t matter how good Herbie was that day,” Leifer said. “He was in the wrong seat.” Instead of snapping a historic photo, Scharfman became part of one. The balding man between Ali’s legs? That’s Herb Scharfman, Leifer’s rival."

[Old Crank]

14. Garry Winogrand

Snap shots or photographer, or great editor. He shot over 5 million pictures over his life.

[Gato Moteado]

17. 5 million???

i shoot that many on a long weekend.....and i usually get 2 or 3 keepers.

[Old Crank]

20. With film

A photo professor said that he started shooting just as he left the apartment and shot everything he could.
When he died his son(?) found hundreds of rolls of undeveloped film shot over the years and had them developed and curated.

[Gato Moteado]

21. noooooooooooooooooooo......i'm never going back to film

when i was in college i did a photo assignment for a history of photography class where we had to pick a photographer and do a set of photos trying to imitate their style. this was in the early 80s and we had to do our own processing and printing. i picked winogrand because he had done a huge amount of zoo photographs and i liked to photograph animals in the zoo.

[AndyS]

22. I've had to reassess my previous answer.

I rephrased the question to "When is painting not art?"

When it's on a barn?

Hmmm that doesn't seem to work.

Perhaps a better answer to 'photograph vs snapshot' depends on the content of the image and it's emotional connection to a viewer.

I mean, if you're just hangin' in the back yard takin' pics of the kids and . . .
you wind up with an image that's evocative and surreal without thinking about it. Is it not an important image and worthy of being called a photograph?

I guess my issue is with the dismissal of a whole genre of imagery as 'snapshots' as if it is without value. These casual images contain our history just as discarded pottery shards in ancient landfills tell a story.

[Gato Moteado]

23. hahahahah.....

.....i think we're on the same page....my point was that i have redefined the word snapshot for myself