Difference Between a Snap Shot and a Candid Portrait

[MomentsInTime]

Hi,

I've tried searching the forums but haven't found anything...can someone explain to me (even better if you could show examples) of the difference between a snap shot and a candid portrait? When doing portraits that are not in a studio and that go for more of a "natural" feel how does one distinguish whether they are taking just mere snap shots or candid portraits?

[Perry Ge]

For me, what distinguishes snapshots and real photographs is the thought process that goes on before and during making them. You can make a very deliberate photograph look like a 'snapshot', for example. So the difference between a candid and a snapshot would be the thought that goes into making the image, even if there isn't time to consider all the compositional elements, there's a distinct difference between the thought 'this moment, this angle, this story, needs to be photographed in this way' vs 'oh that's cool, I want a picture of it'.

[scot079]

I would say that shallow DOF and soft light makes a portrait. Usually only an experienced user with a working knowledge of his/her gear can make that happen.

[Perry Ge]

I would say that shallow DOF and soft light makes a portrait. Usually only an experienced user with a working knowledge of his/her gear can make that happen.

I completely disagree. You do not need soft light and a shallow DOF to make a portrait. Lots of good portraits have these features, but they in no way make a portrait in the sense that they are necessary. Even in glamour, where these features are prominent, they are not necessary.

I'd say the essence of portraiture is capturing the essence, personality, expression, soul even, of a person. No matter how soft your light is, or what your DOF is, if your subject has an awkward, unnatural expression/pose, it's not a good portrait attempt. Some of the best portraits of all time have everything in focus, and use hard, hard light - try taking Yousuf Karsh's portrait of Castro (my favourite of ALL time) and using soft light + shallow DOF, it would fail. The expression, composition, and hard light are what make it great.

Anyway, the OP was talking about candid 'portraits', shallow DOF is not great in candids, you wanna see lots of environment most of the time. And soft light will look artificial if it doesn't belong, sometimes hard shadows in certain areas are key to candid portraits.

[Croasdail]

To me a candid still follows the basic guidelines of composition as a classically done portrait but just done on the fly. It also has to be appealing to a wider audience then those that know the subject. DOF is not any different then in a classic portrait in that sometimes you use DOF for isolation, sometimes you grab lots information with a deep dof as you would do in an environmental portrait.

[airfrogusmc]

I think TOUGHT would be the best word that would separate a snap shot from a good candid portrait. When I think of snap shot I think of a grab shot without any thought of background subject relationship. color relationships, composition or any of the things that go into making a good photograph. Thats not to say a snap shot can be a good candid portrait but the difference is luck is with the snapshot and a thought out image is with the good candid portrait. And experience will teach you when the right moment happens for a good candid portrait so a really good candid photographer can recognize it in a fraction of a second.

[Riff Raff]

Lighting and DOF have little to do with it. I think a portrait is concentrating on that subject, with distractions at a minimum (through composition, cropping, shallow DOF, or whatever). A snapshot will typically incorporate all sorts of random elements that do nothing for the subject.

[MomentsInTime]

Does anyone have any examples they can show me?

[J Rabin]

Candid portrait = The subject was neither prepared nor ready.
Snapshot = The photographer was neither prepared nor ready
:confused:Chew on that a while.

I think what you may mean is studio portrait versus environmental portrait?
There are many fabulous references to environmental portraiture, some with emphasis on editorial, documentary, or photo essay photojournalism, instead of pure environmental portraiture, like: http://www.dg28.com/technique/index.htm and http://www.dg28.com/opinions/portraiture.htm. Many folks have written well on this subject, fewer practice it well.
Jack

[asysin2leads]

Candid portrait = The subject was not ready.
Snapshot = The photographer was not ready
:confused:Chew on that a while.



Works for me. Simplifies everything, huh?

[cdifoto]

Candid portrait = The subject was not ready.
Snapshot = The photographer was not ready
:confused:Chew on that a while.

I think what you may mean is studio portrait versus environmental portrait?
There are many references to environmental portraiture.
Jack

Substitute "was not ready" with "had no clue" and you might be onto something. :D

[J Rabin]

Yeh, I think we're into this now!
Keep it coming.:lol:
I'm in a good mood. Chopping fire wood all day... Jack

[Bootlegger0173]

When I do outdoor events, I consider most of what I take to be candids. They see me moving around with a camera, but don't realize that they are the subject.

This is an example of what I call an environmental Portrait, as they posed for me:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y141/Bootlegger0173/SNIPER%20PICS/07CROSS-01.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y141/Bootlegger0173/SNIPER%20PICS/07TOMMY-03.jpg


And these are an example of what I'd call Candids, since they didn't know I was shooting them:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y141/Bootlegger0173/PLAYING%20IN%20THE%20WOODS%20PICS/PWYP%20VI/IMG_06012.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y141/Bootlegger0173/PLAYING%20IN%20THE%20WOODS%20PICS/PWYP%20VI/IMG_06372.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y141/Bootlegger0173/SNIPER%20PICS/07BUNCH-07.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y141/Bootlegger0173/SNIPER%20PICS/07CROSS-02.jpg

[LBaldwin]

Defining a type of photograph has always been subjective. It still is. My main defination releys on planning and forethought not subject matter etc. If the standard elements quality are involved that is what to me seperates the image types.
My criteria in no specific order is.

1. Planned lighting to shape the face accent the look and create mood.
2. Planned poses, to accentute the attributes of the subject while minimizing the unattractive ones.
3. Creative use of camera controls to isolate the subeject from the BG while maintaining the BG as an element to help create the image.
4. Creative or experimental use of filters, lenses, color or contrast to show the subject in a positive manner.

A snapshot may still have certain of these elements but usually lacks the control of each element.

[Twitch1977]

If no real thought went into the framing of the picture, composition, etc. Then I'd consider it a snapshot. If those things were considered then I would say it's more of candid portrait.

However if it happens to be a picture of a homeless person then it immediately transcends both categories and becomes 'art' and 'emotionally powerful.'

Kurt

[cdifoto]

However if it happens to be a picture of a homeless person then it immediately transcends both categories and becomes 'art' and 'emotionally powerful.'

Kurt

Not necessarily. It has to be converted to Black & White or have a "Vintage" look applied to it first.

[MomentsInTime]

Thanks for the replies everyone and thanks Bootlegger0173 for posting some examples.

The reason I asked about this is that I would like to start dabbling in doing some out door portraits of people but do it in a more natural way so it doesn't look totally posed but captures real moments. But I don't want to be just taking snap shots that anybody can take. So I'm trying to gather info to put me on the right path.

[J Rabin]

Glad you got ideas. There are web resources and books on environmental portraiture, workplace photography, kids at play, etc. How you communicate and connect with subjects, and controlling light, have bigger impacts on success than any "rules."
I'm not convinced "natural" and "doesn't look totally posed" are mutually exclusive as you wrote: ...out door portraits of people but do it in a more natural way so it doesn't look totally posed.
One day I was taking a picture of a student working with radioactive (radio-labeled) Carbon 14 under horrible gas vapor discharge lighting in a blah greenhouse. Had to make best of a blah, bad light situation. She was absorbed in her work (rightly!), so it looks posed, but is not: http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~rabin/NJ_Ag_Expt_Station/Turf_Research/slides/TurfRes_3.htm
Other times, I pose people, yet they look unposed, and unattractive to tell the story. There are no limits, no rules, just suggestions.
Jack

[airfrogusmc]

Heres few I've done some for a personal project and some for clients.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/DrShownkenbw.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/DrThompsonShurgin.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/ChefTomJPG.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/DrTenzer.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/JackieTaos.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_86721.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/Frank.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/James.jpg

[J Rabin]

Heres few I've done some for a personal project and some for clients.
What I like is every photo in group gives a viewer confidence that subject is solid, can be trusted, is confident, and competent. That's from communication and posing, not from "natural." Thanks for posting, Jack.