What makes a photo and what makes a snapshot?

[ALwin]

From another thread, what makes a photo and what makes a snapshot, your thoughts on this people?
 

Here's a pic from wednesday

Whats with all the noise? Lots of space left for a whole lot of nothing. Focus on the borealis, zoom in, use long 100 iso exposure, leave the foreground altogether. In the case its made with a phone or a pocket camera, its just a snapshot.

Why is it a snapshot if the photo was taken with a phone? What do you mean "whole lot of nothing"? This wide angle view actually gives the photo depth, shows the expanse of the charged particles in the atmosphere that causes these magnificent light shows. While this photo may not be of the quality that we may find on the cover of National Geographic, it certainly is a good photo.

Additionally, your sun silhouette photo is something that can be considered a snapshot. While we can see there is some sort of interesting architecture by the shore of this body of water, it's mixed in together with all the foliage. There is nothing that really stands out. Around 50% of the photo is just a mass of blackness. To be a better photo, the architecture should be more identifiable, or visible, clear of the clutter of the trees.

We can get more in depth if you want, mad dude.
It is certainly not a good photo in any way, and it certainly is a simple snapshot.
There are factors that differentiate photographs from snapshots.
First of all and least importantly (IMHO) is the image quality. In this case its crappy. Lots of noise, uninspiring colors, zero editing. Nothing in this department is good.
Second would be the subject in question and composition. The subject in this case CAN be interesting which is good, but the composition is not balanced in any way. There is too much of noisy and boring woods and plains, borealis does not take up enough space in the picture, the clouds on the right are unpleasant and boring too.
Lastly the most important thing: the emotion and whole impact of the photograph. Because earlier points have not been executed enough this last aspect also cannot be fulfilled. This photo does not bring interest or emotion, it does not feel any special, its does not feel like there's been any work put into this picture. There are plenty of these phone photo takers that make simple snapshots all year long and this picture is another one of them. If you consider yourself a professional you should know what are the differences between photographs and snapshots. If that borealis is a subject you love, you must see past it and identify the nothing "special - ness" of that picture, and if you cannot do that, you are just a dude with fancy gear talking too much on the internets, and breaking the rules of this thread.
As for the criticism of my photo, I appreciate that and agree with some of the points you made. I will not address any of it specifically, cause we are breaking this threads rules already.
P.S. Maybe you should donate that photo gear of yours, which is worth thousands upon thousands of dollars and just keep that iphone for "photography"? Just an idea.

[ALwin]

To me a photo doesn't have to be clean, crystal clear all the time.  It doesn't have to be taken with what most would consider "a proper photo camera".  If you're passionate about photography, it doesn't matter what kind of camera you have.
 
While modern digital cameras have come a long way, making it easier for people to buy cameras, take photos and share them on the web, I also feel that it makes people believe that all photos have to have this crisp sharp look that digital produces.  While certainly it is obvious that the person who took the photo above of an aurora may not have used a DSLR, I feel that it is not a snapshot.  Sure it may have been captured with a phone camera, that has bad low light noise performance, yet it certain shows a much better photo than many posted by others on that other thread.
 
And while certainly it isn't a photo that would currently appear on the cover or inside of a modern day National Geographic magazine, it certainly looks like something that would've appeared in NG decades ago in the days of old film.
 
Photography is not all about the effort put into it, sometimes people get very lucky and is able to create an instant hit with one single photo because they were lucky enough to be at the right place at the right time while someone else may lug around kilos of gear spend hours preparing and get crap.
 
Me? Yes I can be a photo snob and am arrogant enough to voice my dissatisfaction with what I would consider amateurish work. But I certainly don't like someone saying that another person's work is a "snapshot" when it is said without merit. 

 

When I joined this forum I joined to ask for some computer hardware advice, but got pulled deep into this Photo/Video section when I saw some of the bad advice people were getting about buying a camera, misconceptions and shoddy knowledge that was being perpetuated.  I hope that in the few months since I joined I've managed to put a dent into that.
 
Now what kind of photos would I consider a snapshot?

• a majority of selfies
• photos that are intent on capturing memories (birthday party photos, holiday photos)*
• many photos that do not convey a story or emotional response

But honestly, there isn't a set rule that defines what is a photo and what is a snapshot.  You have to look at it in a case by case basis.

 

The second photo above, for example, I consider it a snapshot because though I know that some effort went into creating the image it feels more like someone trying out a new photographic technique on anything that was available nearby instead of actually looking for a proper location or vantage point to capture the image.  It feels like something a beginner, even I have done it several times, who just learned/read about a new style or technique and wants to test it out on anything that was available to see if it works.

 

*I often look back at the event photos I've been paid to capture and I despair at calling any of them photos.
 
Otherwise all of these would not be photos.
http://www.ippawards.com/
 
So what are your thoughts about the difference between a photo and a snapshot?  Try to look beyond the two example photos I've used above.

[zenodio]

The whole snapshot vs photograph discussion is incredibly subjective and the photo community (not just on this forum, but in general) already has way too much snobbery going on.

 

To me it seems like Kereplaz calls the photo he criticised a snapshot mainly because of technical limitations and because it doesn't give him a hard-on.

 

It's like saying a certain piece of music isn't actually music but just noise, simply because the musical track wasn't properly mastered.

 

Honestly I think the entire discussion is just a load of rubbish.

[ALwin]

Honestly I think the entire discussion is just a load of rubbish.

 

I agree, I'm just pushing it here because I don't want to start it in the other thread.  I've had my say.