Re: What is a snapshot?

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> A snapshot is a picture that meets both of the following requirements:
> 
> 1. It is taken without much thought or planning.
> 2. It is of little interest to people other than the maker and his close
>    friends or relatives.

I think that either "requirement" will qualify a photo as a "snapshot". 


> The second requirement is needed, IMO, because there are pictures taken 
> in a snapshot fashion (quickly, no planning) that are of great public
> interest and no one calls them snapshots.  Also, there is nothing wrong

I'd call them snapshots of great public interest.  In fact, a snapshot of
a kid who turns out to be emperior of the world would *become* something
of interest only after thirty years of being a snapshot.  It doesn't
lose it's snapshot status, just because of being emperior.  Unless of
course, the emperior so declares it!  :-)

A photo with a lot of thought and planning that turns out to be "#2" might
still be a snapshot (IMHO).  Particularly if it "looks" like a snapshot.
If it looks like one, then it is one.  An "artist-type" might disagree,
they were just going for the snapshot "look", but I'll not touch that one.  

Someone who takes a snapshot that turns out to have a UFO in the background,
IMHO, still has a snapshot that happens to have general interest.  Even
monetary value.  :-)


> A discussion followed and the judges said that the picture of the CDs 
> had a calendar-like attraction while the picture of the girl was a 
> snapshot which showed shadows in the wall from the on-camera flash 
> and a wall-plug was distracting in the background.  Honestly, I was
> so captivated by the look in the child's face and the keyboard
> rushing out of the window that I did not even notice these alleged
> distracting elements.

The judges seemed to have said that a photo that did NOT meet #1 but
did meet #2 was a snapshot.

> There are several lessons to be learned from this story.  One of them
> is that it's not enough to take a picture that is not a snapshot, it
> also has to look like one!  The other is that some judges might
> rush to classify a picture of small child as a snapshot unless if 
> other elements (especially the lighting) reveal certain professional
> qualities. -- George Themelis

Or it's easier to take a snapshot than having both #1 and #2.  I think 
either one could qualify a photo as a snapshot.  That said, a photo that
doesn't meet either criteria could still be a snapshot (I carefully
think out and plan a photo of somebody other's kid who I don't know
and it "looks like" a snapshot -- it meets neither criteria, but still
is a snapshot to me).  :-)

I'm really really good at "snapshots".  :-) :-) :-)  


Mike K.


> 
> 


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