"Snapshot is a state of mind." Chant -- uhmmm..
Kenneth Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: What is snapshot? (seriously) > 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 > > > > > > > > >
