Philosophy of Photography: Photograph versus a Snapshot

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

After reading Brian Auer’s blog entry “Who Qualifies As A Photographer?” it got me thinking about a more profound question that was once brought to my attention. When I first became interested in photography I was introduced to the concept of a “photograph” versus a “snapshot”. To be honest when I first heard the definition (see below) I thought it was rather pretentious, but as I’ve honed my skills and discovered how challenging it is to master photography I’ve found the distinction to be quite accurate.
As noted in my comment to Brian’s post…
The real question is not who is a photographer, but what is a “photograph” and what is a “snapshot”. Someone that helped shape my interest in photography once broke down the “photograph” vs. “snapshot” question as such:

A “snapshot” can be taken of anything and of varying quality (composition, exposure, etc.) Usually a “snapshot” is a quick rough capture to document a scene or event. A “photograph” on the other hand is a well thought, composed, exposed and executed art form.

I should clarify per the definition of a “snapshot” that there is a distinct difference between this and photojournalism. Although photojournalism may produce images that seem to fit the “snapshot” definition photojournalists employ a variety of techniques that transcend pointing and shooting.

The next time you look at an image think to yourself, “Is this a photograph or a snapshot?”. Over time you might see the differentiation and it might just impact how you approach capturing a scene.

Technorati Tags: photograph, photography, snapshot, definition, art form, photojournalist, photojournalism, philosophy

Stay Connected with Jim
	Join Me On Twitter	Become a Fan on Facebook
	Listen to EXIF & Beyond	My Latest on YouTube

Posted by Jim on 05.01.2007 at 10:18 am
Tagged: Links & Articles, Photography

Related Posts

No Related Post

Alex

I have been thinking about this alot recently since our office just acquired a fancy new DSLR and my co-workers assume that the photos I produce easy to accomplish, and that they can get similar results by taking a quick snapshot just by using the same camera. To me, the equiptment is a non-issue...great photos can come from mediocre equiptment, just as terrible photos can come from great equipment.

In my opinion, the difference is that a photo is intentional and premeditated and requires at least a basic understanding and use of the artistic and technical fundamentals of photography - composition, lighting, exposure, white balance, depth of field, etc. This does not mean, that all "photos" are consequently beautiful to look at. On the flip side, a snapshot is simply the press of a camera button without any foresight into any of the fundamentals of photography in an effort to capture a moment in time. This does not mean that all snapshots are ugly either, in fact many are very beautiful and compelling - they may even follow some of the fundamentals of photography - the difference is that it was not the result of any congnitive process.

So basically, photograph = intentional and snapshot = un-intentional. Either could be aesthetically pleasing.

Ã§iÃ§ek

Mike clearly there are multiple interpretations of these terms. I like your take on it.

jim

Mike clearly there are multiple interpretations of these terms. I like your take on it.

Mike Alexander

On a photo critiquing website I participate on, a member remarked to a beginning photographer, that the image posted was a "snapshot". The beginner wanted to know why. That thread made me think about that question, and I came up with the following:

"A snapshot invokes a memory of someone you know or met, a place you've been, an event you attended, or a pet that you've owned. The connection to the image is emotional and subjective. A snapshot, shown to a stranger, is ineffective, because the stranger doesn't have that memory or emotional connection to the image.

"A photograph stands on it's own. It doesn't rely on memories or emotional connections to portray itself. It has to portray its meaning on whoever views it, and it may very well say something different to everyone who views it."

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with snapshots, they just serve a different purpose than a photograph.

jim

Kris in principle I agree. I think one could argue there are two things that support these definitions:
1. There is a level of effort difference between the two. To your and others point that isn't a sole differentiater between these terms.
2. There is a level of quality difference. In the context of photo editing (narrowing down the best of your photo-shoot) a term is needed to describe the best of the lot. Whether you were using a "point and shoot" or an SLR or whether you were crafting an image or just rattling off in hopes of capturing something good there needs to be a differentiating term between those you toss and the best of the bunch. That term could be as simple as "a keeper", but in most scenarios where there is critical review "photograph" might be the term of choice versus "snapshot".

I can see where Guy and Chad are coming from and on many days I'm in that camp. On others I look at a group of my photos and if I'm lucky a few stand out as a "photograph". Depending on ones slant the terms can mean or infer many things.

These terms are incredibly subjective, and I have to admit I'm finding this discussion to be incredibly enriching.

Kris Hansen

I do not allow myself to make a distinction between the value or quality of a 'snapshot' or 'artistic' shot. I'd like to point out that using the term 'photograph' in this vain (to 'rank' an image is pretentious, it stretches the meaning of the word.

n. An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface.

v. phoÂ·toÂ·graphed, phoÂ·toÂ·graphÂ·ing, phoÂ·toÂ·graphs

v. tr.
To take a photograph of.

v. intr.

1. To practice photography.
2. To be the subject for photographs: She photographs well.

Some of my best shots were 'snapshots'. Some of my worst photos were ones where I had the time to plan it out in my head, then deal with the utter frustration of not being able to frame the shot as seen in my mind's eye.

What is the difference between a snapshot, or an artistic shot? Often times I see a scene, aim, and shoot. Often, the end result is fantastic. Is this a snap shot? Or does my 20 years experience in photography, qualified eye, and mastery of camera operation make this image worthy of being labeled artistic?

Chad

Semantics aside this is a great discussion. I'm with Guy on this one...I think. There are great snapshots and there are horrid photographs. If I had to choose which one I'd rather be credited with I'd go for the great snapshot every time.

To me the condescending label of snapshot is nothing more than a means by which a more experienced photographer conveys a certain snobish message. It's a way of saying that a particular image failed in it's design. Most often this seems to describe poor composition. To me there are only images. Good images, bad images and every flavor in between.

The 'snapshot" label is nothing more than a cop out taken by those with more experience when dealing with images from those with less experience. That said, it seems the implication has a certain critical mass in photographic circles to warrant it's use in critiquing.

Richard

Interesting discussion, and I think Guy articulates it very well.

jim

Brian and Guy.... I suppose I look past the labels to think is this art or not? That is a completely different can of works :) To your point Guy if it invokes emotion, awe or any other gut reaction then I'm more apt to look at it, process it and appreciate it. The terms don't matter as much as the impact to the individual viewer.

None the less the differentiation between the terms wasn't to divide as much highlight the difference of effort taken to capture an image. Many often wonder why their photo lacks a certain quality or impact. This is potentially one major element of that puzzle.

Guy Tal

I think the literal meaning of "snap" provides the clearest distinction - a snapshot is more impulsive/reactive, where a photograph is more planned/proactive. As Brian said, there will always be some gray areas between the two extremes.

Either way, I try not to place an inherent value into these semantics. I'm a big believer in the end result, and oftentimes a well-made "shot from the hip" snapshot may evoke powerful emotions that even a meticulously-planned photograph cannot.

Ultimately I think photographers tend to gravitate towards one style or the other and our inherent need for superiority yields some derision from either side. As a viewer though, I prefer not to think about it and try to appreciate a photograph for its aesthetic qualities rather than how it came to be. Admittedly, being a photographer myself, I'm not always successful.

Guy

Brian Auer

I often find myself evaluating images and wondering if I consider them photos or snapshots. Some are easily distinguished in my mind, while others are in that "gray" area where I could be convinced either direction. There always seems to be gray areas when it comes to photography... I guess that's why it's so interesting.