Re: [Leica] snapshot! insult or compliment?

["mdelman" <mdelman@rochester.rr.com>]

Hi gang, here's how I differentiate snapshots from more artful(?)
photographs:

Artful photographs:  These convey meaning to a broad audience.  Think of the
Life Magazine picture of the soldier kissing the nurse in Times Square at
the end of WWII.  Everyone understands the meaning of that photograph -- the
country's joy at the close of the war.
In other words, the picture has narrative power.

Snapshot:  A record of an event which has meaning to the people who are in
the photo and the person who took the photo.  It has limited, or no,
narrative value to people who participated.  Think of a typical snapshot --
two people, posed awkwardly, standing next to each other.  Are they husband
and wife? Friends? Are they happy? When and where was this picture taken?

Do we know anything about the context of the above described picture? Nope.
It only has meaning to the people who are involved.  The photo will serve as
a memory trigger for those people who view it at a later date.  Example:
That's picture was taken in the backyard of our aunts house the time we had
that big family barbecue..... yada yada.

Let me know what the rest of you think.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Moth" <ray_moth@yahoo.com>
To: "LUG" <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] snapshot! insult or compliment?


> Henry wrote: Message-ID:
>
> >Mark wrote:
> >I'm trying to figure out just how bad of an insult calling someones
> images an
> >snapshot is.
> > snapshot (n.)
> >1. an informal photograph, esp. one taken quickly by a hand-held
> camera.
> >2. Hunting. a quick shot taken without deliberate aim.
> >3. Informal. a brief appraisal, summary, or profile.
> >4. to photograph informally and quickly.
> >
> >
> >Mark Rabiner
>
> I think it can (most often is) be an insult but does not have to be
> (ought not be). Some folks only dig what I call "constructed
> photographs" some only get giddy about what others might call
> snapshots. There are some fine snapshots out in the world and about a
> zillion times more bad ones. Just because it happened spur of the
> moment does not make it worth less as a photo. And all the bad ones
> really should not drag the good ones down.
>
> If its a good picture it is just that. Skill is required - not just
> luck. Ted Grant's photo of Trudeau sliding down the bannister could be
> a "snapshot" but it sure didn't happen because Ted's a goof.
>
> Its not about locking up a bunch of monkeys with a bunch of
> typewriters.
>
> "Chance favors the prepared mind"
> =====================================================================
> Several LUGers have pointed out, in recent posts, that a photograph can
> only be judged by a third party according to its appearance, not the
> circumstances under which it was taken. A picture could be poor because
> the photographer had insufficient time, was in an extraordinarily
> difficult or hazardous situation, etc. but the end result will not show
> this: all we see is a poor picture.
>
> IMHO, the term 'snapshot' should be considered an insult when used to
> describe another person's photograph, especially if that photograph was
> displayed or exhibited as a serious piece of work. The commentator is
> saying that the picture exhibits the nature of a snapshot, that is, a
> picture taken in a hurry without due preparation and forethought.
>
> Regards,
>
> =====
> Ray
>
> "The trouble with resisting temptation is
>  you never know when you'll get another chance!"
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>