An interesting charactor shot with a nice clean background. The flash shine and lack of catchlights gives it an odd, almost 'deer in the headlights' look. Was this with the pop up flash or a 3600HS?
Thanks Mr. Curtis!
When I say CC& is welcome I really DO mean it! All C&C, and not just the Sign My Yearbook casual replies. So if you'd like to elaborate it would be kewl with me!
If that " " is what I think that " " is... then I was at least successful in the attempt.
Jim Rickards wrote:
An interesting charactor shot with a nice clean background. The flash shine and lack of catchlights gives it an odd, almost 'deer in the headlights' look. Was this with the pop up flash or a 3600HS?
Thanks Jim. I think you understand this shot... or... at least the intent of the shot.
I just used the pop-up flash with a napkin held about 6 inches in front. Then I smoothed out the BG and did a little BG-Detail suppression, lip coloring, removed some massive glare from her glasses, brought out more of the pore detail, etc.
I rarely get shots right when I'm drinking or partying but this is what I was looking for - for a change. So I touched it and posted it.
BTW, this little gal is one of the contributors who enabled me to open my CD Shop some 20 years ago. This shot was taken at a private screening of the Annie Leibovitz film. Annie was supposed to be there but if she was I didn't see her - which is a bummer... I would have loved to meet her!
Hey, it's not a studio shot. I mean, look at works of some fashion/club price winning Japanese, German, French, etc. photographers - non-diffused flash, no post processing..etc..
Mind you, their subjects are usually young and hip types either wearing minimal amounts of fabric or barefoot all over the body, but who says you should shoot only perfect 10s?
Yeah, the "pretty people" syndrome is a classical and legitimate observation.
I think Sam probably meant something more to do with the qualities of the shot as you critiqued in the 1st part of your message but was in a hurry or something. Anyway, I take exception to the term "snapshot" because it's usually used derogatorily and it seems to contain no specific meaning - a proverbially extended middle finger if you will.
Bifurcator wrote:
Yeah, the "pretty people" syndrome is a classical and legitimate observation.
I think Sam probably meant something more to do with the qualities of the shot as you critiqued in the 1st part of your message but was in a hurry or something. Anyway, I take exception to the term "snapshot" because it's usually used derogatorily and it seems to contain no specific meaning - a proverbially extended middle finger if you will.
Thanks for the comment Krosavcheg!
Snapshot |ˈsnapˌ sh ät|
noun
1 an informal photograph taken quickly, typically with a small hand-held camera.
There's no need to be so defensive. If you don't want comment and criticism, don't ask for it.
I don't know if there is there a story behind the image that would help explain your rough treatment, but personally, I don't care for the image. She looks sweaty and startled, but not like in a Weejee photo where the startled subject creates drama in the picture. Here she simply looks like the subject of a snapshot.
If I may quote wikipedia in this particular situation:
A snapshot is popularly defined as a photograph that is "shot" spontaneously and quickly, most often without artistic or journalistic intent. Snapshots are commonly considered to be technically "imperfect" or amateurish--out of focus or poorly framed or composed. The term derives from the snap shot of hunting. Common snapshot subjects include the events of everyday life, such as birthday parties and other celebrations; sunsets; children playing; group photos; pets; and the like.
The snapshot concept was introduced to the public on a large scale by Eastman Kodak, which produced the Brownie box camera around 1900. Kodak encouraged families to use the Brownie to capture moments in time and to shoot photos without being concerned with producing perfect images. Kodak advertising urged consumers to "celebrate the moments of your life" and find a "Kodak moment."......Show more →
liamh wrote: Snapshot |ˈsnapˌ sh ät|
noun
1 an informal photograph taken quickly, typically with a small hand-held camera.
There's no need to be so defensive. If you don't want comment and criticism, don't ask for it.
I don't know if there is there a story behind the image that would help explain your rough treatment, but personally, I don't care for the image. She looks sweaty and startled, but not like in a Weejee photo where the startled subject creates drama in the picture. Here she simply looks like the subject of a snapshot.
I'm not being defensive. At least not that I can tell. Think about it.
Informal,
OK, what's formal? A studio setting or highly contrived set?
--->
OK, "informal" defines about 90% of the shots on this site - perhaps more.
Taken quickly.
So like, not night photography? What does that mean, "Taken quickly"? Well, it doesn't mean anything. If it's not describing exposure time then I have to ask: What photographer spends more than a few seconds "Taking" the shot? Positioning? Well I spent several hours on mine. Getting there... into position, with the intent to photograph people, at that specific event. If we think about it existentially we all have spent our entire lives setting up and getting into position for every photograph we've ever taken.
"With a small handheld camera".
OK, who here is NOT using a small handheld camera? Raise your hand.
See? no one!
But all seriousness aside if that to you implies taken with a camera smaller than a typical SLR / dSLR then my shot (above) doesn't fall into that classification.
No, "snapshot" on a site like this used as an adjective without ample extended explaination is a bogus and meaningless term that contains no discernible or constructive content within a critique. It is in fact a proverbially extended middle finger and nothing more. I doubt Sam intended to flip me off but without thinking that is indeed what he did. I'm not upset or defensive over that. I have friends that flip me off every time we meet. That's fine. But here, and in that context? Umm, no. it was a poor choice of words and doesn't classify as constructive critique of any kind. It is quite exactly what people say when they want to say "it sucks" but don't want to or can't qualify the remark with any real critique.
While I do wish to call Sam on that so he doesn't get into too much trouble or hurt the feelings of an aspiring noob or something, I really don't want to make such a big deal over it.
BTW, she always looks "sweaty and startled" that's her basic nature. Her eyes are naturally black with no detectable iris - it's a japanese thing. I would go on with a critique of her personality but I don't think it would be kind - so I won't.
Krosavcheg wrote:
If I may quote wikipedia in this particular situation:
Edit:
If I also may insert one of my snapshots...
"http://www.3byk.org/imgposts/IMG_2973f.jpg"
That's a better definition. Almost no one on photography sites uses "snapshot" to declare the impromptu nature of a photograph tho. I think we are all aware of that.
Yeah. that's true. I've had to correct lots of misinformation and math mistakes concerning shading model technology and their historical importance. Phong, Oren-Nayar, Lambert, Minnaert, Cook-Torrance, etc. etc. There's lots of mistakes in the American History references too but there's too much politics being played by the corporate New World Order crowd so those aren't editable or don't stay edited for long.
For general reference and definition I still think it's useful and a pretty good place to start.
Definitely agree with all of you. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
I merely wanted to point out that "Snapshot" term originated long before advent of point-and-shoot cameras.
As a techno/house producer, until about 10 years ago I got confronted by rock musicians saying "It's not really music you are making, isn't it? Just computers generate bleeps." And to be honest, in the 18th century this was a same response from a people to the advent of new instruments. "it's not a real music"...
There was exactly the same thing between film and digital photographers. And there are people out there still shooting film believing digital is just a bunch of photoshopped rubbish...
... "Snapshot"... Isn't that what they say when they want to say "it sucks" but don't want to or can't qualify the remark with any real critique?
---> 
