Hi!
This has been a fun thread, nice to know what everyone thinks.
OK, the DEFINITIVE answer.
Picture this:
You're in the kitchen and hear this screaming/laughing/hissing
noise in the other room.
Rushing out to see what's going on you find the 3 year old holding
the cat, upside down, above his head and spinning in circles.
Knowing you should rush to their aid, but being a photographer,
you grab the digi, turn it on, and grab one quickie for posterity.
You then go save the poor cat/kid.
This = SNAPSHOT
Now picture this:
You've heard somewhere that at a certain date and time a mountain
in Iceland (Scartaris, I believe)allows a single ray of sunshine
to fall on a passage in a crater which leads to the center of the
earth.
Not wanting to miss the event you book passage to Iceland, climb
the adjoining mountain and spend 6 days in blizzards and freezing
rain to position yourself for the perfect exposure.
The 75+ pounds of camera gear slows you down but you perservere.
Finally finding the ideal spot you anchor your tripod firmly with
pitons and settle in to wait.
Discovering that all of your food and water has been lost in the
climb you endure the hunger and melt snow in your already sodden
coat for drinking water.
At the VERY MOMENT you are ready to take the shot you find
yourself accosted by some mad count who wishes to kill you
and take the discovery for himself.
Cable release in one frostbitten hand, beating off the count
with your trusty backup K-1000 in the other, you get the shot!
This = PHOTOGRAPH
***Everything in between is gray area.***
There, it's settled.
With apologies to Mr Verne;
Don, and all others - I appreciate your answers in the original thread
and this one. Here is my dilemma...
Let's take the spinning cat example... If done properly (provided no
cats or kids would be harmed) this can be excellent *photograph* of a
very funny *moment*. You see, in many cases, photography is also about
freezing *the moment*. With modern technology it would be really a snap,
like Cotty said... Remember, some time ago I've been asking about
shooting a basketball game... I made many snaps and some of them were
just hilarious.
Let's consider the second example. Say, for some reason, let it be a
random cloud, the aforementioned raw of light did not strike at given
time. And so the photographer would still take the picture because he's
been waiting for this for so long and so much effort was spent. Then of
course, it could be mighty boring picture that took great many hours of
preparation and great many liters of sweat and frosted tears to take...
I should say that I am more inclined to agree with Jostein's approach
and generally tend to support Mishka's opinion too...
No, the original comment on one of my photos had nothing to do with
this. I understood the commenter perfectly well. It is just that it
caused my mind to turn in the direction of the question I asked, nothing
more.
Often I would *see* something, such as the bricks and then take a snap.
Then I would either review it in my mind's eye, or merely chimping with
my *istD. And then, conditions permitting, I would go and explore it
further...
And again, thanks for your responses...
Boris
