I would like to offer a definition which does not imply anything about the quality of the picture, or any kind of value judgement, and does not depend on the type of equipment use.
Other people have mentioned intention, then gone on to talk about previsualisation, attention to detail etc. I agree that intention is the key, but I don't necessarily agree about previsualisation etc. I think that if you go out with the intention of taking a specific photograph, then it is not a snapshot. For example, if I walk out of my house now and take a photograph of the front of it, then that is not a snapshot. It doesn't matter whether it's good or bad, handheld or supported on the back of a phoenix, or whether it's APS or 10x8". Everything else is a snapshot. So if, while I'm outside my house, I see a giraffe on a unicycle, and I photograph it, that is a snapshot. That is why I consider 'Moonrise, Hernandez' to be a snapshot. If you read 'Examples: the Making of 40 Photographs' you will see that Adams had gone to the Charna Valley to make a particular set of photographs, which he thought were unsuccessful. Successful or not, I would not consider these to be snapshots. But on the way back he saw the famous moonrise, and worked quickly to capture it as best he could. To me this is a snapshot. Intentionality versus opportunism. By contrast, HCB would prowl the streets, waiting to see what came along, operating with, as far as possible, no expectation or intention. Waiting for opportunities, and having the skill both to recognise and to capture them, as Adams did with the moonrise. By further contrast, consider some of the most famous photos by Doisneau, such the Le Baiser de l'Hotel de Ville. These have the quality we often associate with snapshots, but in many cases they were carefully planned and executed - perhaps as carefully as anything that Ansel Adams ever photographed - so by my definition they are not snapshots. -- Cheers, Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 24 July 2005 15:45 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: What is snapshot? (seriously) > > Hi! > > Larry, Shel, to clarify this issue further. What I was asking > the question of this thread I did not mean it as a reaction > to what Shel said... > > It simply was a sum of few ingredients - Shel's use of words, > my memory as to how I approached the shot (and many others > that I presented here) and general curiosity of my mind... > > Again, I did not try to react to Shel's very comment about > that very image... An independent, a tangential thought > occurred to me and I decided to ask my question... > > Gee, it is not easy to put into words this kind of reasoning... > > -- > Boris > > > >
