What Is This "snapshot" ?

This should be interesting... let the games commence :D

A snapshot, you pull out your cel phone (or other camera) take a quick photo without putting much thought into it. To me it means a photo that could be framed, exposed or composed much better if the photographer had taken the time to put more thought into the scene they were looking at and what they wanted the photo to convey or the story they wanted it to tell.

Cheryl,

Both paintings and photos take vision, a good or great eye. But paintings lean much more heavily on craft for excellence.
Photos rely far more on the vision the great eye. When someone is developing their craft there is a social norm to accord them
respect for a much lengthier effort. When someone simply snaps off a photo.....really there was much thought or effort involved?

I think many "photographers" show up here with blurred images, noisy images, and/or over exposed images among other problems.
They need to rely on developing their technical skills more. Craft? yes, but not as much as technical. Just squaring things often would help.

That all said, people getting pushy with others over their skill level is not cool. It is not the next guy's business.

Dave

a snap shot is a photo that wasn't intended to be art. usually coupled by poor lighting. junk in the background, flat skies, uninteresting subjects. usually comes from vacations. images of a beach may contain a ton of people, messy sands, crooked horizons. it could include people coming into the frame or out of it. the subject may be obscured, out of focus, not at all clear, not framed well, bad angle, etc.

basically its sort of like, your on a weekend, your hair is up. your wearing less than optimal clothing. and your expected to go to an job interview like that. that's a snap shot. something more in the lines of a nice outfit, that's a better image.

a halfway finished drawing can't be called a snap shot because its not a photo. a snap shot used to be just a picture, a term. we could call it a practice drawing. or it looks incomplete, it doesn't look polished.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

A thoughtless push of a button. A doodle perhaps.

Usually the result is uninteresting composition, bad lighting, things growing out of people's heads, parts cropped out etc.

The snapshot is taken in a fraction of a second. Nothing in drawing could compare. In a drawing you have full concentration. Whether or not you have any skill is to be determined by the viewer.

.....

dictionary says "an informal photograph, especially one taken quickly by a hand-held camera. "

Cheryl,

Yes, there are paintings that are "snapshots". The term snapshot refers, in many cases, as something that was grabbed, not planned and not attempted to improve upon. Painters can make snapshots, if the talent or vision isn't there,

Rich

Rich,

Interesting take.

Dave

It takes painters longer to create snapshots though.

I disagree. The term snapshot is specific to photography (and hunting).

....

Wikipedia's def - "A snapshot is popularly defined as a photograph that is "shot" spontaneously and quickly, most often without artistic or journalistic intent. Snapshots are commonly considered to be technically "imperfect" or amateurish—out of focus or poorly framed or composed."

Rich,

The term used not be a pejorative, now at least in this forum it is.

Painters are given more credit even if they do a bad job.

But some abstract expressionists jump from nothing to "what a piece of crap" in a matter of a New York second.

Cheryl we are edging into shaming folks with no name here.

Dave

Rich:
That's the thing... I wondered if a painting could be a snapshot.

My plein air work feels kind of snap-shotty (is that a word?) when I sit down to paint or draw outside, sometimes the light is changing fast so I don't take a lot of time to plan the picture I just paint or draw whatever is in front of me. Partway through I realize that the subject I chose doesn't have any potential... it's just a bunch of different shades of green with no contrast or center of interest, or whatever.

Everyone Generally:

I also still wonder what a photographer is supposed to get out of it, in terms of a constructive lesson, if someone tells him his work is a snapshot. Based on what people are saying, it's a very broad term, it seems to me as if it would be an unhelpful comment unless it's accompanied by more detail, explanation of *why* the photo has been relagated to the "snapshot" bin.

The photographer's challenge is to pull something interesting out of what is in front of them. They do this by working the scene, trying different angles, depth of field, choosing where to place focus, which lens to use etc.

If the result is nothing different than what any novice would do - hold up the camera at eye level and snap away haphazardly - then the critique of a snapshot is warranted.


Snapshot is what goes on Facebook. Fine Art is something someone would pay to own.

Dave,
I've heard photographers - professionals - dismiss either their own work, or the work of others as "snapshots." I didn't always agree with them... sometimes it seemed an awful lot like a personal taste thing... but it's never been a compliment when I've heard the term used.

Has anyone ever heard, "Oh, that's such a great photograph -- its a real snapshot!" or similar?

No.

Snapshot is not a compliment in the world of fine art.

The comparision would be:

Childish drawing
Amateurish drawing
Poorly drawn
Lazy drawing
Ham-fisted drawing
etc

It was exciting way back to get a camera that could take a snapshot.

Dave

Edward: There's the spontaneous shot -- being in the right place at the right time and capturing a fleeting moment -- sometimes captured by amateurs (not me, though). I've seen some amazing photographs like that, which are unplanned. They're great art, they're not "snapshots."

***
Arghhh. Got to go... just when this is getting interesting. Back later...

This is the mindset of the snapshot. The camera does it all.

Are there one hit wonders in the painting world? People who are revered for their one and only "lucky painting"?

More likely these "spontaneous" shots are captured by photographers with a trained eye who at the spontaneous moment can compose on the fly. Henri Cartier-Bresson comes to mind - the master of candid photography - he practiced his craft every day. What seems like a lucky show was the result of being ready and anticipating events.

Are there one hit wonders in the painting world? People who are revered for their one and only "lucky painting"?

That is a really interesting question. I can not think of a one.

Dave

It is possible to take a snap shot, meaning whipping out a camera and quickly getting a great shot. Sometimes people do get lucky or just have a knack for framing a great scene together quickly.

I always refer to anything taken with my camera phone as a snap shot regardless of how good or bad it is. Some of those photos can actually be quite good. Sometimes they are better than what I get with the DSLR setup simply because its easier to get a certain angle with an iphone than a DSLR and tripod setup.

In the context of the forums, I think "snap shot" means a poorly thought out photo. Doesn't mean it won't sell if it is sharp and in focus, just means the story behind it or that it tells is not compelling to whoever labels it a snap shot. Beauty is, however, in the eye of the beholder.

Your work is freaking amazing!!!

I'll give you this one. Street photographers -

Garry Winogrand and other street photographers probably comes close the idea of snapshooter. But even though the guy shot roll after roll of film, he was still looking for something. He wasn't just thoughtlessly shooting. And the thousands of images shot in a day were carefully edited. The result is probably closer to photo journalism than fine art.

....

But like Adam stated, in reference to a forum critic - a snapshot probably has someone photobombing in the background, half a leg on the side, trees growing out of someone's head, tilted earth, trash cans in the background, power lines over head, a plane in the sky and someone thumb in the corner.

Cheryl,

Each medium and venue through the ages has been problematic.

Snapshots are to a certain degree problematic or endemic to this venue.
But it is not my problem. The thing is people endlessly show up with snapshots
as is their right. And then they ask what are your thoughts? Not a great move.

Dave

Good point Cheryl. Sometimes a doodle is a work of art, like Klee, sometimes it's just a doodle, sometimes the doodle has an unexpected meaning to oneself or someone else.

I tend to have it with architecture - mostly old houses, but some other buildings, where an inexplicable emotional response from the design or the facade or even the brick or tile colour/texture. Often a flash of terror from a childhood nightmare, like this kindergarten they stuck me in for awhile, where they literally washed kids' mouths out with soap, and served a cold brown water as 'soup'.

Horrible.

Anyway, yes - sometimes photography results in a lucky shot, and there are some quick Picasso sketches that may be flukes, or may be genius, or may be both.

In photography whipping out the camera and taking however many shots and one of them catches the bird or alligator doing something unusual. Actually that's one of the best feelings

To me, a snapshot is the photographic equivalent of a Xerox copy. A photo which basically anyone with fingers and half a brain could replicate, no attention for defining moment, light or anything else of artistic, journalistic or photographic merit.

Hi Cheryl, this is an important point that you are bringing up. I see your point about demeaning a work of photo journalism or art as being simply just another snap shot. There are ways to put down paintings too. Snap shot isn't one of them but cropping incorrectly or too much digitalization are ways in which my work has been critiqued. I don't like people cutting my images by saying they are too digitalized so I've recently taken to filming myself painting. I also want to learn how to film my digital work as I'm doing it. Some people don't realize how hard digital painting is. I like to read the critiques because they help me, but it's a mean process for sure. If something is too common a snap shot, it's been said, that it's unlikely to sell... but not really. I see a lot of high selling colorful digital dog images. Likewise, paintings that become too abstract or free flowing to the point of zero quality can be serious challenges for me personally, as that is my technique and along with adding too many special effects through photo shop. Some people never fail to tell me that they either like my originals much better or that the digitals don't really exist. These are put downs to me as a painter.

Cheryl, the experienced photographer has a way of seeing that is informed from years of careful looking, thinking, and working. They really do see things that the average person doesn't see. Although their work may seem to be quick and spontaneous, they do not take snapshots.

Henri Cartier Bresson delivers artistic work, seemingly shot "in the moment," that always reflects the depth of his humanity, his heart and mind, and his aesthetics.

Excellent documentary about Cartier Bresson "The Impassioned Eye"
http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Henri-Cartier-Bresson-The-Impassioned-Eye/70044714?strkid=1217081571_0_0&strackid=1877c125e2f5e58e_0_srl&trkid=222336

Edward,

I stand by my original post. The term, in general, refers to any art that exhibits a sense of lack of planning or vision. Paintings fall into that broad category. If I painted something, I would think, at best, it would be considered a "snapshot".

On the other hand, there are MANY snapshots hanging in museums around the World!

Rich

Joel,

Yes, Cartier is the very Artist that comes to mind, when I mentioned"snapshots" and museums!

Snapshots, can, in fact, be art, but of course, depends on the artist and their vision.

I personally have both on my site. "Snapshots" that are very good and just snapshots!

Rich

Here's a slightly different take.

A couple of weeks ago, a photo challenge site I enjoy participating at had a snapshot challenge. "Snapshot" was the title of the challenge and according to the description, we were to present a "Snapshot as art or art as snapshot. Don't worry about the ambiguity of the challenge - just shoot!"
The premise at this site is that you get a challenge, have a week to shoot for it, and then everyone spends a week voting on it.

This is the one I put in (now edited as noted below).
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/almost-done-nikolyn-mcdonald.html?newartwork=true

I actually like it quite a lot and it did very well (94%ile), precisely because of the challenge subject. In another challenge, things like having the standing kid's head and torso cut off or the girl on the right crammed into the corner would probably have counted against it, but here they were seen as assets. In addition to comments such as "Great stuff", "Great light and moment", and "perfect snapshot", I got the following:
"This is probably one of the best photos in this challenge. And one of the best childhood photos I've seen in a long time on this website. Something that just grabbed me as soon as I looked at it!! Love the child standing up with the pebbles in their hands about to drop....and the look on the children's faces, brings me back to my childhood and the simple joys children can have playing outside thank you!"
"The light is almost too good for a snapshot. But it's definitely a compelling picture!"
"I hope they stopped when they reached the neck! I love the fact that this looks not a bit like an actual "Ocean" beach- the fact that the "sand" looks big and chunky like cat litter makes this a terrific snap."
"A renaissance painting"

No one panned it.

But I entered it at another site, just because I like it, and fully half the commenters found it creepy; in addition, most were too polite to comment at all :)

And it's fine with me if people here tear into this or use it to illustrate one point or another in this discussion. I have thick skin and besides, I really like it and it has already been validated for me LOL
Patricia suggested a crop (next post). To do that, I actually had to clone in a bit of space to suit me. I've replaced the image. If you viewed before and still see four children, refresh your browser :)

A picture snapped. You grab the camera and click the button when your kid says cheese.

I once took a snapshot many years ago that I thought was the cat's pajamas, and I still do. But most will never be great art.

I don't believe there could be any equivalent in painting. Apples and oranges, right?

Nikolyn, I just saw your post. That has the feel of a studied shoot, not a snapped shot (although I know it is). If it were only the three children on the right, wow! Crop out that fourth child on the left and see what you have. Thumbs up, imho!

I think the equivalent in painting is pretty much what Edward said above. Snapshot term is just for photography. The painting equivalent is amateurish, poorly executed, bad composition etc...

this is timely... as a high school AP photo teacher, I was just grading tonight and used the snapshot comment a few times - for images that lacked purpose, and/or had compositions that were not mindful of the surroundings or contents.

I don't think most experienced photographers (years of experience; thousands of captured frames) are capable of taking 'snapshots'. We've become too used to making instant judgements on composition, perspective, light, etc. -- it's second nature when your eyes and mind have learned to work together in a certain way.

One of my favorite photographs was shot at a moment's notice when I stepped out of the truck to help a friend unload groceries. Because I almost always have a camera close at hand, it was the work of a moment to capture the once-in-a-lifetime scene.

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/homecoming-wendy-j-st-christopher.html

Unplanned and instantaneous, yes -- but never thoughtless. After years of practice, the thought and mechanics become automatic to a degree -- negating the whole idea of 'snapshot'.

I agree that it's a photography term, with no real equivalent for painting or drawing. Mainly because a snapshot happens in an instant, and that's just not possible with a pencil or paintbrush. And, no -- it's definitely not used as a compliment, in most cases.

There is no such thing as a painting equivalent, no.

Every single one of my photos on this site, bar one, is a snapshot. Just whipped out the camera which is a smartphone, and just snapped. No forethought.

Then when I get in I just see if there's anything there and have a play.

My definition of a snapshot isn't necessarily one that was taken quickly on the spur of the moment, but one that looks as if the photographer just pointed the camera and pressed the button without giving any thought to the composition. So it's not the speed, so much as the lack of thought, or perhaps lack of awareness would be a better term.

I can't think of an equivalent term for a painting or drawing, but there are lots of examples on FAA where it's obvious that the artist didn't plan the whole picture before they started. Instead they just started drawing in roughly the centre of the paper and had to cut bits off the subject because they ran out of space when they got to the edges. Worst of all is when they're working from a reference photo which is itself a snapshot and slavishly copy the original. There's no excuse for that - the one thing a painter has is the choice over what to include and where to place the elements of the picture.

The words amateurish, poorly executed, etc only partly describe the problem. Perhaps we should use the term 'lack of artistic vision', but that's where it all starts getting subjective and people start throwing things...

"Snapshot painting" - a fascinating concept! - i had a go with the digital ipad, just see what comes out, the same with writing... why not? just dabble and see, it might be crap, it might be fascinating, the subconcious might take you to other sights... you can value it highly for what it is. or not; but then, we are often have to face the creepy intent of onlookers who may have ill-intent in their means of poisonous assassinations!! lol, yuk, i think we can honestly just dabble and see. The human condition is many layers deep and each has a picture to show and words to say...

The "poement", a moment of instant poetry, can be misinterpreted, but for true free expression, we should be allowed to explore our inner worlds without the equally, if not more, prejudiced world of interpretation - and onlookers who often reveal nothing true about themsleves, just the nurtured display from crafted concealing minds?.. i mean do you believe all psychologists/psychiatrists (arm chair and otherwise) might not be prejudiced? We all have some prejudice, we all have to recognise that, ( edit: many overcome it), most victims might be equally agressors in the world of prejuduce, it takes alot to tackle this, expressing our inner sleves and dealing with it on higher levels...., so.... a snapshot.... do you love spiders? or hate ice cream?...

(a momentary snapshot - of just one layer - of ourselves. Obviously i dont advocate highly offensive art of any sorts, but do the same moral and ethical rules apply to everyone and all arts? i wonder..... arts do push the boat out as far as possible.... ..)


edit: My main point here, to clarify, is that snapshots of all kinds could be a means to self exploration of our hidden minds

you can always tell the difference between a snap and a good shot. the difference is really night and day

i take snap shots all the time, usually its a location i was at, a sign, a flower and such. and those never get posted. the type of camera doesn't determine if its a snap or not btw.

usually what i see here is a vacation shot, a light house, with a parking lot, a random person or two, the sign explaining where they were, a blank sky, and the building is often shot from the parking lot.

where as a good shot is taken by the ocean, on the side that doesn't have the other distractions.

there are no real comparisons to the other kind of art. best comparison is artwork that is incomplete. they didn't match colors well. they didn't put on any finishing touches. they made it crooked for some reason. or like many on this site - they shot it with their phone and uploaded it crooked and noisy with a bad crop. like they didn't really care how it was presented at all, and just stuck it up there. that's more or less the attitude when it comes to snap shots.


the person with the camera, doesn't leave the main path, they stay with the others. they don't go out of their way to shoot from a better angle, a better time of day, getting really low, or trying something creative. they often don't check their work after to see if maybe the main subject is in focus or not. they don't seem to notice stuff on the edges being cut off. don't see the distracting signs and garbage cans. if the image is about antiques and people dressed in vintage clothes, they don't see the modern things like sneakers, name badges, and other things of this era. and often they take an image that is actually pretty good, but they don't polish it at the end. fix the color, exposure, angle and such. and it can become a snap shot because it looks muddy and dull.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

for good examples - seek facebook.

the images your non photographer friend posts - (that are their own images) are probably snap shots... what they ate, their pet and so on, all probably not in focus or in a shadow.


the images your non photographer friend posts - (that are not their own images) - are probably professional images.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

"you can always tell the difference between a snap and a good shot. the difference is really night and day " NOT true. Some 'snap shots' are good. you may plan to take a photograph of a heron (for example) landing or taking off. You may adjust all the setting as best of you knowledge and ability - but in the moment of truth - as the bird is landing, taking off or in flight - that, mes ami, is a snap shot no matter how good or ill the finished photograph is.

I know a person or two who have never taken their camera off "auto", not on P, M, S, or A, and they probably haven't a clue what those places on the dial are for - and they probably aren't interested, they shoot jpg and not 'raw' - they have fabulous shots and sell those 'snap shots'.

If the shots are fabulous, then by definition they aren't snap shots. Although I don't understand folks who never shoot in manual, there is more to good photography than the technical side. An old friend of mine got into photography after I did and took a methodical, study by book approach to it. In no time, he could explain the technical side of photograph to me as if he had been doing it all his life. The creative, frame up a nice scene side of it came from hard to him and I believe he would tell you he still struggles with it somewhat. I'm not sure you can teach framing and composition, certainly not as easily as shutter speed and aperture.

I'm on a few railroad forums and sometimes calling someone's photograph a snapshot would be much kinder than some of the guys who critique there. A lot of guys there don't understand there is more to railroad photography than finding a train. A lot of train engines in the direct center of the frame, no thought at all given to where the sun is in relation to their subject... and these guys think their shots should be included on a screened web site or in the pages of a magazine. It gets entertaining sometimes. I might start calling them snapshotographers. Usually, I will say something along the lines of, "It looks totally hapazzard, as if you found a train, pointed a camera at it's general direction and hit the shutter." They might understand "It looks like a snal shot better."

The camera setting is not what matters - its the intent that is the difference. Shooting with intent and purpose vs. informally taking a snap. An artist emerges when you see consistently good results, not a few random lucky shots over a lifetime.

....

I still don't see how a painting can be considered a snapshot. Snapshot would not describe a bad painting which is subjective. Anytime you are painting your mind is engaged. With a snap shot you are obvious to the scene. You can't paint without being aware of your canvas. Since you are adding every element to the blank canvas, you are keenly aware of every square inch. In a snapshot you focused on your friend or dog and not thinking about the environment around the subject.

Joseph - I think of those shots as "I saw a squirrel" or "Look I saw a train!". We all take them but when we are serious about our approach, the artist creates a mood and employs everything in their toolkit - composition, lighting, angles, post processing etc to create art.

@Nikolyn= yours look more like an unposed photo which makes it a great candid! Take that same photo on an open beach with a ferris wheel, bbq grill, and jet ski in the background it becomes a snapshot. Just my opinion.

I have to disagree and claim that there is a painting equivalent... it is mindless doodling.
We (my school) sometimes cover the tables with butcher paper - kids will use paint, marker, pens, pencil, tape, whatever to do quick little things without much thought about the composition and leave out details for that which is included.
I am not saying that time has anything to do with it because i have been to some amazing 'quick draws' where painters complete beautiful pieces in under an hour. Nor am I saying that details have anything to do with it - I am a fan of minimalism. I think it boils back down to composition, thought and intention of the piece.

Joseph - I think of those shots as "I saw a squirrel" or "Look I saw a train!".

That's a perfect description actually! And fits snapshots to a key! Snapshots are fine when the person with the camera realizes they are snapshots. When they try to pass them off as anything else is when the trouble comes. As far as giving critiques, I suppose there is a fine line between brutal honesty and mocking the effort. I see the former on these forums and the latter on the railroad groups I mentioned.

The only approximation to snapshots in, "representational" painting is a study, a quick sketch. In these the artist is many times not attempting a composition but just trying to draw a hand, a figure, flower, whatever in preparation for some more complete, composed and finished work. What is often most difficult is to retain the gestural life one can achieve in a quick sketch in the more nuanced painting. I work from photographs at the moment by necessity. Like many I always have my camera with me. I take many photographs, few of which ever make it into a painting. Some paintings are a combination of a sky from one photo, a background from another, two or three photos to compose a center of interest, etc. A painting could be from one photo or five. Some are snapshots some very planned and composed. One of the biggest challenges to many painters is to make them NOT look as if they were painted from a photo. For some just replicating a photo is fine. I never want to hear, "it looks just like a photo." A painting might take 50 or 100 photos, several sketches (snapshots) and drawings before ever beginning the canvas. Photos are primarily reference material for my paintings. Artists of the past did 100's of sketches and were drawing all the time, "snapshots" used as practice, notation and reference.

Hi, I'm back... for the moment, at least. A lot of good comments.

Just to fuel the debate about what a "snapshot" is... the original sketch of a live model, a very quick pencil sketch with a frustrating lack of detail... would that fit David Randall's definition of a snapshot? Is the finished painting a "snapshot"? -- and yes, it is finished.

[wait a moment... posting pic]

Other folks would say it applies exclusively to photography... I'm actually in the "applies exclusively to photography" camp, with the caveat that there are works in other areas of art that are analogous to the snapshot, but we use different words for that.

****

Then there's my Big Gripe about the word "snapshot" when used in a critique. It's so broad, can cover so many photographic sins, that without further elaboration -- explanation of what's wrong with the photo -- it's virtually useless as a teaching tool in a critique. I think calling a photo a snapshot is intellectually lazy -- it gets the person doing the critique out of articulating what's wrong in a way that enables the photographer to understand what to do better next time. (Also, as a non-photographer reading the critique, I don't learn anything... and inquiring minds want to know...what am I seeing here?).

That´s a snapshot:



Colin Utz
http://colinutzphotography.com

Colin:
Really? I think the composition is pretty good, there's contrast, the arrangement of the figures moves your eye around the image, the light-path is off center (good use of the Rule of Thirds). Nice texture, beach sand, waves. The figures aren't static, there's motion & personality to them.

What do you think is wrong with it?

Although it´s probably a nice picture, technically seen it is a snapshot. It wasn´t planned, nothing was arranged. Everybody with a camera ready to shoot, could have done it.

Nikolyn:
I really like the "snapshot" you entered in the snapshot contest. I can't believe people panned it, when it was presented in a non-snapshot context... go figure.

Colin:
So if you end up with a good piece of art, why does it matter whether it was planned?

There is another term called "candid". A wedding photographer will take a bunch of "formal shots" and then candids at the reception. Posed, planned vs. unplanned and spontaneous.

It doesn´t! Fortunately snapshots like this happen sometimes ... 😎

Consider how "snapshot" relates to this definition of fine art photography: " Fine art photography is photography created in accordance with the vision of the artist as photographer."

The idea is that there is some level of thought behind a fine art photograph vs. a random snapshot.

......
Snapshots vs. Fine Art Photographs: http://thinkartmakeart.com/fineartsnapshot.htm

Tina Barney made a career out of photographs that seemingly looked like snapshots - but were they just snaps?

I thought a snapshot was one that was taken on the spur of the moment, with little to no planning other than lining up the camera and taking the shot. The result could be dreadful or it could be a masterpiece, but it's more down to serendipity than to planning...

Richard Reeve
ReevePhotos.com

I agree with Richard's definition. A snapshot is not necessarily a poor quality image, but I do believe the term is used derogatorily most of the time.

Do we have any examples of these masterpieces? Seems to me Average Joe's snap is not going to be vaulted to the realm of masterpiece.

A snapshot is an image that is done with minimal thought, no artistic intent and usually little technical skill.

That doesn't mean that 72 people won't like it in a contest or that it won't go viral on the internet ;-)

But the definition of a snapshot has to include poor quality in my book. Otherwise it's not a snapshot. Some people do get lucky.

Just because there is no planning doesn't mean it is a snapshot in my opinion.

Scenes sometimes just present themselves BUT that doesn't mean the trained photographer or even someone with an intuitive eye for composition doesn't still present the scene in a way that conveys artistic merit.

I shoot snapshots ALL the time with both my cell phone and my "really good camera." Generally just to capture a scene that I want to remember or share. Little to no thought is given to composition in them.

Then, there are scenes that just pop up but I still think about the artistic composition.

It is hard to show without examples so I will use some.

Here are a few snapshots with the general idea of conveying how not to take just a snapshot.

Here is the set up for shooting a small waterfall. The cell version is there just to show how I set up for the better version. NO real composition other than to show a pedestrian stream scene and how it can transform via vision.



This one merely shows how I set up to shoot while it is snowing, again, no composition other than to show the technique.



Whereas there is no planning in this one at all. The scene was there. This type of light lasts a few minutes at best and was shining in just the right spot. I literally ran to get a composition I found pleasing. It certainly wasn't planned but there is artistic merit in how I used the scene presented to produce the final image.

Spot the difference -

David...ok :)

sample

http://fineartamerica.com/images/contestlogos/logo1-spank-pillow.jpg

The recording through the 'Screen Recording' mode is to be used for the recording of a certain area of what is shown on the computer screen, such as flash games, internet streaming videos (Streaming videos on YouTube, USTREAM, CNN...), various Windows programs (Internet Explorer, PowerPoint, Excel, etc.)

Read more: http://www.bandicam.com

Edward:
Very clear "compare & contrast" illustration, for portraiture. In the "snapshot" I see a lot of things cluttering up the background that don't contribute meaning or compositional value, and the expressions on the faces are the classic "smile & say cheese" smiles that don't convey anything about the subjects other than they're socialized well enough to know to smile at a camera, and they want their photographic memory of this day to be happy. The lighting is problematic, especially the reflections on the eyeglass lenses that obliterate the eyes -- I think expressive eyes are important in portraiture.

In many cases, the distinction is less clear - whether the image is "snapshotty" or not. (That word again... I keep needing an adjective -- snapshot is a noun).
Perhaps there is a continuum, it's not binary: "snapshot" vs. "not a snapshot." Clearly bad snapshot at one end of the continuum, well planned fine art on the other, and a lot of mixy could-go-either-way depending on how you analyze it stuff in the middle.

JC: Great example of how much better a landscape photo looks when you've put some artistry into it.

David B:
One-hit wonders. Interesting question, I can't imagine musical art has a monopoly on one-hit wonders. The argument could be made that the one-hit that becomes famous & tops the charts is not the only musical work of merit from the musician in question. Rather, it's the only work that got famous.

Is there such a thing as a one-hit wonder? What other works, made by one-hit-wonder artists, exist that have never gained public attention? Are there any artists who have only ever made one piece of art in their lives, whose one piece of art has achieved the status of great art? Start a new thread? Could be an interesting discussion.... this thread's on snapshots.

Then there's the corollary debate about whether all art that becomes famous also has artistic merit, and we've chewed over *that* topic ad nauseum on other threads...

Although MDs threads about individual artworks try to pick out a single image as some kind of example of luck or bad work, no piece that becomes revered is divorced from the background of the artist and their other work.

Some snapshot might make a splash as a editorial piece or something that gets passed around on Facebook but its not going to be collected by an museum.

Then again, some unplanned "snapshots" are more than museum worthy... By way of example, Eddie Adams' image of Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan killing a Viet Cong suspect, and Alan Downes' image of Kim Phúc running from napalm spring to mind as examples.
It depends on the situation.

Richard Reeve
ReevePhotos.com

... Martin Parr.

... indeed, Colin ;-)