Good points! And it applies to the term "snapshot" too. People not thinking or considering easy impromptu pictures as "real" photography - thus the negative connotation of the term. Of course this is delusional as well as inaccurate. Music is just the organization of sound - any sound and who, how or where it's made is not a determinate factor. Likewise photography is only the process of creating images by recording light radiation. On and with what, by who, or how is again, not a determinate factor. Though different ways may be more or less fun, prestigious, accurate, etc. etc.
Hmm...I didn't think one word would turn into a whole thread about wiki. Anyways, I have been a member here for about a year or so...I started commenting recently rather then just lurking. feel free to look at my past posts, whether it's on your images or anyone else. I try to be as nice as possible while still getting my point across about the image. I try to avoid saying things such as "your image sucks". I said the word snapshot since it looks like you directed the flash right at her face which created very harsh lighting and harsh shadows. the bg is not interesting, her face is very greasy, there is a lot of noise, her skin has different tones of color from her neck to her face etc...to add to that the pp work you have done after the image was taken seems to have added a halo around her, creating an unrealistic look from what I see on my monitor. I could really care less what you think the word snapshot means, I used it to be nice...not to offend you. Had you asked me to elaborate I would have been more then happy to tell you all the things I personally think are wrong with your image. I am not sure why you chose the other route where you seem to have gotten offended and then became defensive.
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.
Neither picture you show here, of Annie Leibowitz's work, is a snapshot, whilst the first one has obvious technical flaws it has journalistic content that gives it some merit above a mere snapshot.
I'm intrigued as to why you think your shot is a good image? What did you do, technically or artistically to capture the image? What was your intent with the image? Who is the audience for this image? What do you want them to think and feel when they view the image?
BTW. The lack of catchlights in her eyes is due to her glasses not her ethnicity.
liamh wrote:
And you say you're not being defensive? .
Yes, I did say that.
Neither picture you show here, of Annie Leibowitz's work, is a snapshot, whilst the first one has obvious technical flaws it has journalistic content that gives it some merit above a mere snapshot.
I did NOT say that. The images are there as an example of a "contrived set" as I implicated.
I'm intrigued as to why you think your shot is a good image?
I did NOT say that either. What makes you think I think it's "good"?
What did you do, technically or artistically to capture the image?
Why do I feel the next few questions are actually rhetorical and not out of genuine interest?
Positioned the camera on a tripod, set up flash diffusion, took sample shots to expose for as much BG removal as possible without killing detail in the subject, waited for "the" classical pose. In post I suppressed more BG detail, brought out more pore detail, sharpened, removed noise, reduced some shadows.
What was your intent with the image?
To capture the essence of a weird (unusual, strange, etc.) person in an equally weird (unusual or strange) light.
Who is the audience for this image?
Anyone interested in photographs of unusual people, Anyone willing to offer constructive critique or advice on other unusual lighting models & techniques, Anyone interested in the unusual. Anyone interested.
What do you want them to think and feel when they view the image?
That an intense question with a very involved answer. If I drop all pretense?
BTW. The lack of catchlights in her eyes is due to her glasses not her ethnicity.
OK, but she has black eyes. One can look for 15 min. and never see a pupil. Many Japanes have this and it's well known. Ask most Japanese what color their eyes are and they reply: "Black".
Interesting... I was thinking the same thing. Right?
Make unfounded assumptions, make accusations, ask rhetorical questions just to stir things up, come across as holier than thou, etc. I don't know if you're aware of it but those all apply to your last several posts in this thread and all are tell-tale signs of a troll. Also usually trolls are the first to holler "troll" themselves.
Check my posting history, I think you'll find I'm bona fide.
You seem more interested in critiquing the comments posted in your thread and arguing semantics than discussing photography. I guess that's your choice, but don't start whining when you get a few prickly responses, especially if your replies are overly defensive and patronizing.
I'm probably missing something in your shot that may help me understand it better. To me it simply looks like a snap taken with a point and shoot camera and an unflattering one at that. It doesn't look like the finessed shot you describe taking, but if it's what you were going for then once again, I guess, it's your choice.
liamh wrote:
Check my posting history, I think you'll find I'm bona fide.
Your history doesn't count. You either trolled or you didn't.
You seem more interested in critiquing the comments posted in your thread and arguing semantics than discussing photography. I guess that's your choice, but don't start whining when you get a few prickly responses, especially if your replies are overly defensive and patronizing.
So you just admitted to trolling - as a payback. Ha... which is it you did or didn't? Nevermind.. you did. It's totally obvious to me.
My replies weren't defensive or patronizing IMO. I still don't think so and I'm sorry if you do. Honestly, I think you just want to point your finger. You're not even talking about photography any longer. I answered all of your questions rhetorical, pointed, and empty as they seemed and all you did was turn it into a personal attack calling me a troll in my own thread. Boy you must really love the term "snapshot" or what else could have set you off? The image itself maybe? You're redirecting?
I'm probably missing something in your shot that may help me understand it better. To me it simply looks like a snap taken with a point and shoot camera and an unflattering one at that. It doesn't look like the finessed shot you describe taking, but if it's what you were going for then once again, I guess, it's your choice.
HTH.
So after I make very clear what "snap" means to me and probably most other people here then you go ahead and use it with no other qualifying critique? OK, I got your number. I think you've shown your colors very clearly. I hope things improve for you. Whatever it is you're going through I feel for ya bro.
I have taken a little time to reflect on this thread, and if I can make an observation, it would be that.......IF YOU CHOOSE TO PUSH THE ENVELOPE....YOU SHOULD EXPECT IT TO PUSH BACK.......
Portrait photography is clearly not easy, to do well. And at any moment in time the conventions of an art can be very specific, especially when there is an audience. Magritte, Dali, Picasso, Chagall, Klimt etc. when they burst upon the scene did not have a large audience, and still are not accessible by many, but if you don't like what they do, does that make it any less art? I have never understood or appreciated "heroin chic", but then again I do not live in NYC.
Perception is always filtered by culture, experience, religion and a whole bunch of genetically hardwired issues that are poorly quantified. But I was at a lecture where the author stated "Normal is what I like to do!". As an artist Bifurcator you can only hope to please yourself. The moment you open yourself to the public or the profession you can only expect that one other person out there will "GET IT", if you get two you have succeeded......if you want commercial success you have to follow the rules. Many of the painters mentioned above were forced by need to produce what sells. This forum IMO has many professionals who try to help us with suggestions that are aimed at commercial success. You don't always have to agree or need that level of input. Take CC for what it is worth to you, and move forward.
In my experience judgments based on opinion are either done by starting with a perfect score and then deductions are made based on imperfection or the judge starts with a zero score and adds points based on qualities. And each of us tends to be one or the other when we judge. Are you a positive judge or a negative judge? Positives and negatives seldom agree on how things should be viewed.
Does your photo please me, NO, but I can appreciate that there was intention. Thank you for allowing me my opinion........mike
I get what you're saying. I agree completely. My observation of what took place in this thread is not the same as yours maybe? I took all ernest critique to heart. I took exception to one post I thought was an unqualified slam. As soon as he qualified it I was good with that. But when someone else decided to "teach me a lesson" by attempting to humiliate, attack on a personal level, and belittle me without having anything what-so-ever to do with the photograph I met the challenge. I have balls. I grew them long ago. And I don't let companies, governments, or people with personal problems, walk all over me without need or provocation. If you punch me I punch back too. This has nothing to do with the properties of the photograph posted nor the critique thereof. If it's poor - it's poor, tell me why you think so - so I can learn. That's what posting photos here is about - to me at least - and by reading posts here I assume the vast majority of others here too. I learn more from mistakes than from successes and I'm happy to get blunt to-the-point critique. But calling me names personally or attempting to critique my personality as liamh did, is unacceptable and childish. He can go do that in someone else's thread if he wants - if they'll allow it.
Again, I agree with what you're saying. See my reply in this thread to a real critique from the same person as initially (and in all likelihood unintentionally) delivered the slam and you'll see I try to follow that train of thought myself as I can.
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!
As the risk of prolonging this testy debate, I'd like to comment that using the word snapshot is probably something to avoid.
As quoted above, it is ususally derogatory (OK, so what?) and it is usually unclear what the writer really means. (But I don't agree with the "extended middle finger comment)
The MAIN THING however is that as a critique it offers no specific problem with the shot and no suggestion for improvement.
To me, "Snapshot" says:
1. I don't like this shot.
2. You didn't try very hard.
A critique should say what you do/don't like about the pic.
Though different ways may be more or less fun, prestigious, accurate, etc. etc. 
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