"WHAT NOT TO DO" - thoughts in photography

You're trying to do what cannot be done. It's like pornography. I can't define it but I know it when I see it. Sometimes I like what I see and sometimes I don't.

So no, you're not going to be able to compile a list of characteristics that define "snapshot."

Three "violations" do not automatically move a photo from "photographic statement" to "snapshot."

cdifoto wrote in post #9403869
This is where the over-thinking comes into it.

No you cannot teach a writer how to be a writer. There are many many English literature graduates who cannot write to save their life. Just as there are many photography degree holders who cannot take a photo to save their life. There are also many GREAT writers who do not have a degree, just as there are many great photographers who do not have a degree.

What would I learn from shadowing a photographer? Quite a bit. How to interact with people, how to talk to people, how to get people to open up to me and feel comfortable with me and my camera. Would I learn how to make a statement by shadowing? No. I probably wouldn't learn the exposure triangle either because they'd hope I was past that and certainly wouldn't want to stop what they're doing to teach me what I can learn in a small book.

Photographers struggle with the clarity of their intent because they haven't gotten their intent clearly sorted in their own mind yet, or they aren't quite sure how to achieve it technically (the latter can be solved easily, the former not so much). They certainly aren't wracking their brain over avoiding keystoning or raccoon eyes.

You're sticking to a very narrow view and I find that commendable. Good luck with that.

What is the difference to you between a casual snap shot and a more resolved image? Just because you can't quantify it or create a technical chart explaining it doesn't mean its not worth our thought or investigation.

Anyone reading this thread so far will see that you have missed the spirit of the post. You are picking apart small parts from the whole and it is rather misleading. I'm sorry if my posting isn't more black and white for you. I'm going to stop replying to your posts, but I am interested in what others think. Thanks.

My view is narrow?

You're willing to disqualify a photo as a photo and call it a snapshot because it does a few things you do not like.

kkamin wrote in post #9403893
What is the difference to you between a casual snap shot and a more resolved image?

It's a really big grey area, but I'd say the difference is intent.

To me a snapshot is just a quick recording of a moment in time with no serious thought placed on the technicality or aesthetics of recording that memory, created solely to please the image maker or to illustrate something on a very basic level. Technical proficiency and therefore quality is irrelevant...not to you or I but to the image maker, and it's not for us to judge because the image wasn't made to please us. It could have been made to show us something "hey check out this car I saw!" via email or text or whatever, but the quality JUST DOESN'T MATTER, or the subject itself trumps the quality of the image. Pics of the kids making a mess of spaghetti, etc.

A "resolved image" as you call it, to me, is an image planned and created for the purpose of broader appeal or sending a message. It's more deliberate. Maybe it's going to be shown publicly, maybe it's just going to be given/sold to the subject or family of the subject. No matter where the image ends up, it has a purpose beyond that of a snapshot.

Success or failure in either attempt is highly subjective.

Just thought I would barge in on this conversation and present a photo and see what you think.

http://hphotos-snc1.fbcdn.net …423_8044618_775​0925_n.jpg

This picture exhibits 3 of the mentioned issues.

1. Crooked horizon.
2. Subject cut off at the limbs.
3. On board camera flash was used.
(I could also make a case for a busy background, but I'll leave that out)

Now ignoring the quality, as there was no real post processing and it was uploaded to Facebook, what would you say this image would be classified as? A snapshot because the rules were violated? Or is this a true photo beacuse the photographer decided to express themselves?

unmanedpilot wrote in post #9404061
Just thought I would barge in on this conversation and present a photo and see what you think.

http://hphotos-snc1.fbcdn.net …423_8044618_775​0925_n.jpg

This picture exhibits 3 of the mentioned issues.

1. Crooked horizon.
2. Subject cut off at the limbs.
3. On board camera flash was used.
(I could also make a case for a busy background, but I'll leave that out)

Now ignoring the quality, as there was no real post processing and it was uploaded to Facebook, what would you say this image would be classified as? A snapshot because the rules were violated? Or is this a true photo beacuse the photographer decided to express themselves?

The main purpose of this thread was never to delineate snap shots from what most people would consider more resolved photography. Or to start of list of common mistakes people make. My thesis is that a few spoiled clams can kill a hundred great clams if all cooked together.

This is not meant to put down people who take snap shots. But there is a subjective quality difference in my Grandma's photos and something Anne Lebowitz takes. And I think it is something that can be talked about without offending or creating hard classifications.

If I were to talk about the photo you posted and give it a crit. I do think that the tilted angle is not being used to good effect, it's what Auntie Matilda would call 'artsy'. I think the fill flash is unflattering. I don't think she is being cut off at the limbs but she is being cropped in a weird unsettling way. I think the extreme orientation is disorienting and doesn't support the subject matter (maybe it does if I knew the context). I'm not a big fan of the angle; looking down on her, it doesn't seem intentional. I couldn't imagine this image anywhere close to being published commercially or being considered for a juried art show. What would be interesting if the image was stronger but had a few flaws to it and examining how much that impacts the overall photograph. Again, my idea isn't about what is bad or good per se, but the strong impact I feel mistakes have on work.

It's difficult to have a discussion when one side keeps changing the topic...

First, you propose that there is a solid list of no-nos.
Then, you propose that one or several flaws can ruin an otherwise perfect photo.
Next, you propose that a few flaws turns a great photo into a snapshot.
Finally, you propose that we discuss how a few flaws can change the impact of a photograph and not try to categorize.

What is this thread REALLY about, Kevin? Do you even know, or are you just bored?

The technical aspects of photography are the really easy parts. How to get the camera level, avoid blur, get a correct exposure, control DOF. This is all stuff you can learn straight from a manual.

The hard part is finding interesting subjects and composing and lighting them well. That's the part I'm working on.

Gotta agree with CD here...you cannot teach someone to be creative, but you can teach them to take a good exposure, which is a good start.

If you weren't born with a right sided brain dominance, you will not be creative, regardless of what branch of the arts that you choose to pursue.
Training can enhance your position on that Bell Curve of creativity, but it won't move you from one side to the other.
You can puruse and memorize and copy the works of the great artists, even to the point of putting your tripod in their holes, but is that creating, not IMHO.

But then I remember have this discussion before.

My gf told me one time: this is something you enjoy and just take the damn photo.

and I realize that a lot of time over thinking is destroying my ability to be creative.

Dang... my man made a post about things not to do in photography and got the snot beat out of him... LOL

Chairman7w wrote in post #9405935
Dang... my man made a post about things not to do in photography and got the snot beat out of him... LOL

At least it's not dpreview. They throw rocks. Real ones. We just use Nerf bats.

The idea has been the same the entire time. You mainly have been picking out pieces from the hole to disagree with which has created some digressions.

The idea is simple.

I am thinking that good photography on a foundational level might have more to do with avoiding a long list of mistakes than with things you should do. And that a very small number of mistakes can destroy an image bursting at the seams with good elements, since I believe photography holds a high bar due to its close ties to human perception and our daily saturation of professional images.

I think photography might be less forgiving than other mediums, because of this and other things.

---------------
I never said there is a "solid" list of no-no's. I said there are things you should not do but they can be broken to amazing effect. Look at my initial post and actually read it.

I didn't say a few flaws makes an image into a snap shot. I said a snap shot can have a lot of good elements, but with enough things working against it remains relegated as a snap shot. It was a quick thought of what can make a snap shot a snap shot. It ties into the main idea.

Your last statement is true and I don't see how that changes the idea. It was just me clarifying my intent.

---------------

cdifoto wrote in post #9404237
It's difficult to have a discussion when one side keeps changing the topic...

First, you propose that there is a solid list of no-nos.
Then, you propose that one or several flaws can ruin an otherwise perfect photo.
Next, you propose that a few flaws turns a great photo into a snapshot.
Finally, you propose that we discuss how a few flaws can change the impact of a photograph and not try to categorize.

What is this thread REALLY about, Kevin? Do you even know, or are you just bored?

It depends on how you define what a snapshot is. You define it based on technical merit in a more absolute and accepted sense, from what I gather. I do not. I've stated how I define these things, but I may be alone on that. However, based on MY definition of what is and is not a snapshot, I feel that a snapshot is a snapshot no matter what elements it has working for or against it. A snapshot cannot be anything else.