i believe there's quite a number "I and (Eiffel Tower, Kremlin, Brooklyn Bridge...)" snaps being taken every second, with most of them being preconcived. that is, people go to Brooklyn Bridge to take the snap of them being there. quite deliberate, pre-visualized garbage. i've done that on countless occasions.
i don't think there is a single definition of "snapshot" -- it all makes sense only within the context. but if you really need a one, here: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Snapshot (photography) >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The snapshot is a concept in photography introduced by Eastman Kodak with their Brownie box camera in 1900: a casual photograph taken without any particular pre-arrangement, often of every day events. The snapshot also plays a role as concept of artistic photography, see lomography. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- best, mishka On 7/23/05, Larry Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > First I believe that Don's original post is true. As the two root words > imply a snapshot is a photograph that is done quickly and without much > thought at the time of the shot. This definition makes no implication as > to the quality of the photograph, just how it was taken. With this > definition a snapshot can be a good or even great photograph. > > The second definition, to me, is pejorative in nature and conveys the > sense that the photograph is not of great value because of its technical > aspects or subject matter or both. (i.e. "It is just a snapshot.") > > There may be other definitions (oh, the joy of the English langauge!) > but these are the two that come to mind to me. > > Larry >
