OK, after some time defending myself on the "rich suburban mom" thing (mosty pointing out that it was uttered in the gear/skill/results context not the pro/amateur/uses context) I figured I'd actually address the pro/amateur/uses thing by refering to a concept I bumped into in my abortive graduate work in visual communications. (What actually got aborted was the program, not my studies...)
The concept is "ekphrasis", which is loosely defined as detailed literary description of an actual thing which is intended to bring the subject before the mind's eye of the listener. The context in which I encountered it was that they have ekphrastic descriptions of some paintings from antiquity, and recently they found the actual paintings. Lo and behold, some of the stories depicted by the paintings and referred to by the ekphrastic descriptions have bits that are not in the actual paintings. The paintings were being used by the authors as visual prompters to help them remember the stories depicted in the paintings. The authors were bringing their own knowledge of the stories to bear in writing their descriptions. The actual subjects were not the paintings, but a story known to the teller. This is often the key difference between photography intended for private consumption and that intended for public consumption (as journalism, advertising, art, etc). Many pictures taken for private use are used as visual "hooks" to hang memories on, and some or much of their value stems from what the viewer brings to it from their own specific experience and knowledge of the subject. A photograph used this way does not have to be particularly good technically, nor does it have to be composed to tell the story. It will be a successful picture if the viewer can use it to remember the event portrayed, or if through knowledge of the subject the viewer feels that the moment captured is somehow especially true, or flattering, or whatever. Without specific knowledge of the subject, such photographs often do not work well. Looking over someone else's wedding album-- especially if you don't know anybody in it--is horribly dull no matter how much the album means to its owner. >From what I can tell, most amateur snapshots are of this type--pictures OF things, but not necessarily pictures which SAY things. I've taken my share of them, and I still do take such pictures for myself. By contrast, photographs taken as art, journalism, advertising, etc rather precisely work as they are intended to because the viewer does not have specific experience and knowledge of the subject. They can call on the viewer's general knowlege of similar subjects and the human condition in general, but any details must be explicitly communicated visually. The visual statement must stand alone using only what is in the frame to move the viewer with its beauty, insight, etc. Visual professionals must be strong communicators foremost. This need for an explicit statement requires precise composition to juxtapose elements, eliminate elements, etc. It requires sufficient technical merit for the viewer to make out what is intended or the picture is hard to "read" correctly. Many such photographs make use of symbolic elements to add "strength" to a photo which often has no direct personal connection to the viewer. In my abortive graduate studies, I found that removing the ability to identify people or places (by tight cropping, silhouetting, etc) tended to cause viewers to understand the photograph as a symbolic statement about the human condition rather than a specific statement about the subjects. Historically, people have felt this sort of photograph to be compelling even when they do not have a personal connection to the subject. Most of the "great" photographs are quite abstract and general, probably because they do not require any specific knowledge of the circumstances under which they were taken to appreciate. Photographs of the communicative sort are successful not because of what the viewer brings to the picture, but because of what they bring away from it. One of the hardest things to do in editing and sharing pictures is to remember that most often the viewer does not bring to the photo what you did. The fact that the moment of exposure was particularly important to you somehow doesn't matter much if the content of the photo doesn't SHOW what was important. I often see examples of this at work, where reporters will take a camera to an event and take pictures. They KNOW what is important, and they usually manage to point the camera at the right thing. Rarely, however, do they manage to take a picture that shows the reader what was important without having to tell them with words as well. It is all too easy to point your camera at a story without producing a photograph that tells that story. If you know the story, the photo will still be useful to you in recalling the story, but to a viewer without specific knowledge of the story the photo will only communicate whatever it happens to actually show. Snapshots are poor ekphrasis. DJE
