[Kerrowdown]

What turns a snapshot into a photograph?

When a picture editor says I like that and pays me for it.

[demp10]

A camera (any type, cheap or expensive) TAKES snapshots.

A photographer (pro or otherwise) MAKES a photograph.

A photograph must transcend the subject, place, technique, equipment, etc. It may be of the most mundane everyday things but it presents them in a way that takes the viewer somewhere. It has a lasting impression. You can hang it on the wall, see it every day and smile or think about something new. It is a window to the viewer's imagination. It starts a conversation with you, it even tell you its title.

A good analogy is with cartoons, where the most successful ones are without any captions, they just tell the story on their own.

In other words, a photograph, like all other art expressions, has a life of its own. The photographer (artist) merely "discovered it" and made it presentable to the viewer. All the technical details, compositions, choice of equipment and processes are just tools to best communicate the "discovery" to the viewers.

[Rupert]

I take mostly snapshots...and have no shame about it! Snapshots are fun, sometimes tell a story.... https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/194827-nature-we-almost-lost-otis.html and can capture precious moments...on a moments notice.

I gave up being a "Photographer" a long time ago. but didn't give up taking photos. Once in a while a blind hog finds an acorn, and once in a while I get a photograph of merit.....at about the same rate as the blind hog finds his acorn!

I love snapshots, yours or mine, they are great viewing in their own right.
Regards!

[magkelly]

For me a snapshot is a picture of any random thing or people just doing normal stuff, like taking pics of flowers in the yard to document what flowers are blooming for a relative or taking pics of the kids at Disney. People taking ten tons of pics of the relatives or cheesy photos of the pets, that's snapshots. Someone actually caring about where the light is when they take a picture of someone or something, taking the time to compose and frame with the object not necessarily dead center, choosing a certain selection of objects or a way of posing someone that's a photograph to me.

Photographs requite at least some mental preparation. Snapshots 99% of the time it's someone just aiming and taking the shot. One belongs in the scrapbook or on the facebook page because it's not really important except as a way to document personal stuff maybe, the other belongs in a gallery or in a magazine or whatever because there is something about it that transcends it being just a snap. I'm not saying some people can't take a snap and make it into a photograph, into art, because I have seen it done, but most snaps I tend to forget the moment I'm done looking at them.

Real photographs linger. They have a much greater impact on me than snaps. FYI, just because it's in a magazine or whatever though doesn't make it a photograph IMHO. Some of the most boring, forgettable snap shots I've ever seen have been in fashion magazines and the like. Some people get paid for some really crappy stuff, IMHO. Being paid does not make it automatically art and a "photograph" per se. It can also just means you're proficient enough technically speaking to produce something a magazine needs to illustrate something.

The photographers who do take their bread and butter work a step higher always have my respect but I see way too much crap masquerading as travel, fashion and glamor photography of late to be impressed with everything that's presented to me. Just because you take a picture of a model in a couture dress and they put it on the side of a bus or on a billboard doesn't mean it's not still a snapshot. There's a big difference between what someone like Ben does and what a lot of paid photographers do for a living. Go pick up an issue of Vogue and look at half of what's in it. Then look at Ben's work and I think you'll see what I mean. Some photographers can take a shot of a car and elevate it to art. Some people they just take pics of nice cars....

[alamo5000]

What turns a snapshot into a photograph?

I think over time snapshots can become photographs. Photographs to me capture something significant or meaningful. More than one famous photo was taken with a point and shoot or similar. The shooter merely was in the middle of the action of something very significant that had profound impact on the public.

It depends though. If you are trying to record significant events just being there can make your snap iconic and thus elevate its status. It simply just has to capture real moments that people will find intriguing or even historical.

If you took a bunch of snaps and then 20 years later the person you snapped becomes President... well those odd snaps will elevate in status because of its historical meaning and significance.

There is also the artistic kind of photography where one must pay attention to all detail and photographic prinicipal. If you are talking about the picture where they had just taken Saddam out of his hole, no one is even thinking about depth of field. However other photos you need artistic elements.

It needs to have intent. One picture is worth a thousand words. Not always true. Some pictures are worth 3 or 4 words only. Others are worth 100 words... the closer you get to the 1000 word mark then you are on to something as far as good images go. If you can sit down and look at a photograph and write a 1000 word essay on what that image means...probably a pretty good image.

If there is enough meaning then photographic prinicipals are 'guidelines' rather than 'rules'...the goal is to capture 'meaning'...

That is only one definition though....

[Mareket]

If you can sit down and look at a photograph and write a 1000 word essay on what that image means...probably a pretty good image.

That's a pretty snazzy guideline actually. I'm gonna stick with that as a definition of a good photograph

And I reckon (if by photograph you mean a good work of art) that the worth of a shot is determined on a personal level only. It's impossible to tell whether someone will look at your shot and fall down to their knees in happiness at the joy of the world or just shrug and walk on. So there's a random element to it and one shot isn't a 'photograph' to everyone. You need to know who you're targeting, and create a shot based on that premise.

I mean, as an extreme example, parents look at the graduation shots of their kids and think that's a nice photograph. Even though it's shot with generic lighting on a generic background as one of thousands of others in a super simple and unimaginative lighting set-up in as little time as possible, they love them because they (and generally it's only them) have a personal attachment to it, and the photographer knows this. The emotional connection lies in the person graduating, so they're portrayed as clearly and as neutrally as possible.

[alamo5000]

That's a pretty snazzy guideline actually. I'm gonna stick with that as a definition of a good photograph

Thank you.

What a compliment!

[alamo5000]

That's a pretty snazzy guideline actually. I'm gonna stick with that as a definition of a good photograph

One downside though is that phototgraphers will be tempted to only photograph the understood or stereotyped.

Photos can be very educational too so the story might not be able to be told by everyone. In my opinion it needs a story AND artistic representation both to make a 'good photograph'.

[roentarre]

If the snapshot delivers your intended message or keeps its meaning to yourself, that is what it counts. Sometimes it is a collection of snapshots that deliver better than a single aesthetic landscape photo.

[mikeSF]

What turns a snapshot into a photograph?

PHOTOSHOP!

booya!


ok, j/k.
My serious answer might be attention to detail, forethought, creativity.

[Riv]

As you can see this runs in stride with asking what is Art? Ask 50 people, get 50 different answers and they are all right.

So what is it then? to me (answer 51) broken down to the lowest common denominator...

The person looking at it

[TER-OR]

To me, like said above, a snapshot is about the moment. If I'm hunting for dragonfly pictures I don't often care what the background looks like, it's enough to get the elusive creature in focus! Same with kids, pets etc - you take what the moment gives you.

What turns it into art is the, well, the art. The eye to compose an image in a pleasing manner, attention to background and field of focus, the impression of motion or a story. I have a friend who constantly laments his lack of equipment but does he ever have 'the eye.' His images just grab someone's attention. His snapshots are artistic. I have patience, I can wait in the cold or rain to get the bird image - but it may not look like much except proof that the rare bird existed in that place at that time.

I will try to pay attention to framing when I have the time, though.

[filorp]

PHOTOSHOP!

hell yeah!!!!!!

[Venturi]

I don't think there's a single wrong answer in this thread, but it's probably much more simple than most of us are making it out to be.

If someone cares enough about it to buy, mount, mat and frame it - or any combination thereof - to them it is a Photograph and no other opinion is relevant.

[disco_owner]

hell yeah!!!!!!

Man , when do your Photoshop classes start ? Sign me up pleaseee...