Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,527   Posts: 1,572,392   Online: 1119
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 40 of 40
  1. #31
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Donald:

    I feel like I'm playing chess with a master and am completely overmatched.

    HHmmm I guess it would be the same as your signature. The sound of one hand clapping.

    Michael McBlane
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  2. #32
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    I bumped this because it has been mentioned lately and maybe we could get some new opinions.

    Michael

  3. #33
    kwmullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Denton, TX, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    889
    Images
    16
    VERY cool thread, blansky. I haven't run across it before -- thanks for the bump.

    I don't think portrait and snapshot are mutually exclusive.
    On the surface, I would maintain that a snapshot is a non-expressive image. I would also maintain that a portrait is a three-way mirror which is expressive of the photographer, the subject, and the photographer's relationship to the subject. (I guess those would be the father, son and holy spirit or first three chakras portraiture.)

    Now, given that all science is value-laden, since everything we do is inescapeably marked by our personal values, I would likewise contend that there is no value-free art. Given that, I would consider all photography expressive, so I guess the test of whether something is a snapshot or an artistic image would be if it was *intentionally* expressive.

    -KwM-

  4. #34
    Flotsam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    S.E. New York State
    Posts
    3,221
    Images
    13
    From my observations over the years it seems to have to do with the price of the camera.

    Snapshot = Cheap Camera
    Portrait = Expensive Camera
    Character Study = Expensive Camera + Black and White Film

    That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
    =Neal W.=

  5. #35
    127
    127 is offline
    127's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    uk
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    581
    In terms of the words being used, I think the comparison is a false one...

    The term "snapshot" is from hunting - a shot taken quickly without proper aiming. Of course the term is also used in hockey - a quick shot without signifigant physical preparation.

    A photo-snapshot could be of a person, but it could equally be of a landscape, a car driving past. It refers to the style of shooting. I'd say it has to be handheld, roughly metered (if at all).

    Portait refers to the subject. If it's of a person it's a portrait. It might not be a good one. It may or may not reveal something of the inner person.

    I think the question that's really being asked is how/when does a photograph aquire artistic merit/value. What seperates what we try to do, from the thousands of shots that go through mini-labs every day, without any of the pretentions.

    Ian

  6. #36
    eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,586
    Images
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Flotsam

    Snapshot = Cheap Camera
    Portrait = Expensive Camera
    Character Study = Expensive Camera + Black and White Film

    This is sooo very TAO.

    I just returned a book back from the library...HCB's portraits of people. They kinda look like snapshot portraits. But only HCB can take 'em like that.

    He uses a Leica = Expensive Camera = Portrait
    It was in b&w = charater study

    I'm a big fan of Eggleston color...are those photos of people snapshots or portraits? They have a snapshot quality to it but very contrived.

  7. #37
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by 127
    The term "snapshot" is from hunting - a shot taken quickly without proper aiming. Of course the term is also used in hockey - a quick shot without signifigant physical preparation.
    I think your analogy is faulty. A snapshot in hockey is a fully thought out, physically deceptive, highly athletic endevour. It is basically a disguised shot that is deceptive to the goalie because he doesn't know it's coming and cannot properly prepare for it the same way he can a slapshot. It's called a snapshot, not because it's compared to a camera snapshot but because it is done with a "snap" compare with a slap, which is taking the stick back and laying into the shot.

    I would compare it to a street shooter who stalks his prey, nails the focus and then points the camera in a different direction until the fateful second then turns and shoots his subject. Very well executed and disguised.

    Michael

  8. #38
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,282
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Flotsam
    From my observations over the years it seems to have to do with the price of the camera.

    Snapshot = Cheap Camera
    Portrait = Expensive Camera
    Character Study = Expensive Camera + Black and White Film

    Surely it's the price of the film, not the camera, that determines the difference?

    Digital - no film - snapshot
    35mm - fairly cheap pr. exposure - snapshot, but could be portrait sometimes.
    MF - expensive film - portrait, sometimes Character Study.
    LF - Environmental Portrait or Character Study
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  9. #39
    rbarker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rio Rancho, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,222
    Images
    2
    Interesting topic, and one filled with semantic issues and personal value judgements, I think.

    To the casual PWC (person with camera), everything is a snapshot, with no value judgement attached. In most cases, snapshots are made with cameras that allow few, if any controls, and the photo is taken (as opposed to "made") with little concern for compositional values. In contrast, to the "serious" photographer, "snapshot" is a derogatory term, an insult.

    A "portrait" probably carries some inferred meaning as to use, as well. Even if the portrait doesn't conform the "classical" requirements, it is usually (always?) staged, done with the subject's knowledge and consent, and is intended to provide a formal representation of the subject. It's meant to be framed and sit on someone's mantel, or hang on the wall. Thus, a portrait is different than a "head shot", for example, because the intended use differs. When the portrait is done in a documentary manner (e.g. Lange's work for the government), however, the definitions start to get fuzzy.

    Then, there's the whole semantics thing. For example, did Karsch "snap" the shutter? Well, yes, but does that make his portraits snapshots? My guess is that few people would think so. Do photojournalists take snapshots? Well, kind of, but not really.

    So, bottom line, there probably is no answer that would be universally accepted. But, it makes a great topic of discussion over coffee or some other favored beverage.
    [COLOR=SlateGray]"You can't depend on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus." -Mark Twain[/COLOR]

    Ralph Barker
    Rio Rancho, NM

  10. #40
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    I would think by now, 150 years into the game, that people would have realized and gotten comfortable with the reality that photography confounds intent at every turn. Yet here we are in this thread, a bit like the dog lounging in the dining room, staring at the bottom of the dinner table as if our gaze would by itself eventually produce some goodies. What sort of look will produce bread, or what sort of big-eyed stare will bring down the bacon?

    What separates a snapshot from, say, photojournalism? Surely the most influential news photos of 2004 were snaps knocked off by a 20-something bozo at Abu Ghraib. Avedon with the Windsors, Karsh with Churchill, Steichen with Rockerfeller -- all lasting portraits made in moments of darkroom surprise and confounded intentions -- both of the photographers and the sitters. This disparity between What We Want and What the Lens Records is at the heart of what Avedon in later years called "the terror of photography" and why he was so happy to advocate the idea that All Photos Lie. Curtis's indians were real enough, but he often brought the costumes for them himself. What was his intent? What was theirs? Maybe a "snap" would have been more honest? Or was his desire to neatly contain the remnants of their culture exactly the most honest and telling statement? Did he unintentionally make a snapshot of 19th-century white American imperialistic attitudes?

    A portrait is what you say it is.


    living room snap, feb 2005

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin