Portrait vs Snapshot

Please induldge me while I catch up after being away for a couple of days...

1) Inner essence does not necessarily have anything to do with portrait vs snapshot, in my opinion. If Donald Miller is pissed and Michael Blasnky and about to clock him, and I whip out the Fuji disposable and capture the moment, it isn't really a portrait. Although we're sure seeing the insides of Donald Miller. However, inner essence CAN be part of a portrait. Richard Avedon is perhaps best at this.

2) I still say that portraits, like landscapes, are created. And lets use landscapes as the example as it's sometimes easier to see an analogy than an illustration: Aggie is walking through the woods, with no camera. She sees a stream. If she whipped out a camera at this point, it's a snapsnot. But as she continues to walk she notices a branch crossing over the stream, with an icicle hanging from it. And as she walks and changes the relative position of the elements from her point of view, she notices that the icicle, when looked at from a specific angle, is pointing into a V of leaves suspended in the stream. And she notices a rock in the stream that causes an eddy that reflects the sky in a spectacular way. NOW if she whips out the camera, it's a creation. Because it's as much her mental assembly of the raw elements of the scene as it is the random elements of the scene itself.

And so it is in portraits. I see Jorge Gasteazoro in a particular way and as I mentially focus on him, I notice things that fit the image of him in my head. The wrinkles by his eyes add to my image of him as wise. The weather in his face reflects the Mexican sun he lives under. By the time I open the shutter, I am CREATING an image of him more than I am simply capturing one.

That, in my opinion, is the difference between a landscape or portrait and a snapshot of anything.

dgh

Hi David,

Aside from the fact that you stood idly by fiddling with your camera while Donald clocked me, welcome back.

In your reply in essence it says portrait vs snapshot is create vs capture. This means that one must manipulate the scene or subject in order to achieve a portrait, or at least manipulate it mentally.

The conclusion from this theory is then, perhaps, that a snapshot is more like a passive reflex to a scene or subject compared to portrait which is deliberate conscious action. Therefore planning and mental preparation are a necessary common denominator for a portrait or a successful landscape to be considerated ranking above a snapshot.

The key word is then manipulate.

Interesting. I could live with that.

How does "Remote Baby" fit into this. If Brian or his wife took this picture and we and he concludes that it is a snapshot. But if it is cropped etc as I said before and makes a statement that I said before, and even though they don't think it's a portrait what if other people do.

Is the argument determined by the person taking the picture or by the audience.

What if Migrant Mother was a quick grab shot (I'm not saying it was)
that Ms. Lange took and later noticed in the darkroom. She then cropped and played with it and it turned out to be a masterpiece. Even though at the time it was a shot among many and was more of a reflex than a conscious photograph. Is it a portrait or a snapshot.

What do you think?

Michael McBlane

Michael,

Wow, very good points. I guess the real answer is that the argument is probably both in the eye of the audience and the artist. I think it works for Dorothea Lange to consider her piece a shapshot, if that's what it was to here at the time she made it, and for me to consider it a portrait of a migrant mother and her children. If she created the image, mentally, then to her it's a portrait. If the image looks captured to me, then I'll probably catalogue it as a snapshot.

dgh

Well the about the image I posted of the fire dancer?

It is arguably not composed. They were there, I was there, I shot. I did not move anyone around.

But I did drag the shutter for the effect (although with stuff like this where the subject is not directed you never know what you might get), and move around to get the right framing. Does that count as "enough" composing?

Or is it that picture not a portrait, not a snapshot, but something else?

If an image is neither contrived nor spontaneously taken but only contemplated in the minds eye of the photographer does it count? Or is it what would normally be called a "wet dream" in the barrooms that I used to frequent?

Donald:

I feel like I'm playing chess with a master and am completely overmatched.

HHmmm I guess it would be the same as your signature. The sound of one hand clapping.

Michael McBlane

I bumped this because it has been mentioned lately and maybe we could get some new opinions.

Michael

VERY cool thread, blansky. I haven't run across it before -- thanks for the bump.

I don't think portrait and snapshot are mutually exclusive.
On the surface, I would maintain that a snapshot is a non-expressive image. I would also maintain that a portrait is a three-way mirror which is expressive of the photographer, the subject, and the photographer's relationship to the subject. (I guess those would be the father, son and holy spirit or first three chakras portraiture.)

Now, given that all science is value-laden, since everything we do is inescapeably marked by our personal values, I would likewise contend that there is no value-free art. Given that, I would consider all photography expressive, so I guess the test of whether something is a snapshot or an artistic image would be if it was *intentionally* expressive.

-KwM-

From my observations over the years it seems to have to do with the price of the camera.

Snapshot = Cheap Camera
Portrait = Expensive Camera
Character Study = Expensive Camera + Black and White Film

In terms of the words being used, I think the comparison is a false one...

The term "snapshot" is from hunting - a shot taken quickly without proper aiming. Of course the term is also used in hockey - a quick shot without signifigant physical preparation.

A photo-snapshot could be of a person, but it could equally be of a landscape, a car driving past. It refers to the style of shooting. I'd say it has to be handheld, roughly metered (if at all).

Portait refers to the subject. If it's of a person it's a portrait. It might not be a good one. It may or may not reveal something of the inner person.

I think the question that's really being asked is how/when does a photograph aquire artistic merit/value. What seperates what we try to do, from the thousands of shots that go through mini-labs every day, without any of the pretentions.

Ian

Flotsam said:

Snapshot = Cheap Camera
Portrait = Expensive Camera
Character Study = Expensive Camera + Black and White Film

Click to expand...

This is sooo very TAO.

I just returned a book back from the library...HCB's portraits of people. They kinda look like snapshot portraits. But only HCB can take 'em like that.

He uses a Leica = Expensive Camera = Portrait
It was in b&w = charater study

I'm a big fan of Eggleston color...are those photos of people snapshots or portraits? They have a snapshot quality to it but very contrived.

127 said:

The term "snapshot" is from hunting - a shot taken quickly without proper aiming. Of course the term is also used in hockey - a quick shot without signifigant physical preparation.

Click to expand...

I think your analogy is faulty. A snapshot in hockey is a fully thought out, physically deceptive, highly athletic endevour. It is basically a disguised shot that is deceptive to the goalie because he doesn't know it's coming and cannot properly prepare for it the same way he can a slapshot. It's called a snapshot, not because it's compared to a camera snapshot but because it is done with a "snap" compare with a slap, which is taking the stick back and laying into the shot.

I would compare it to a street shooter who stalks his prey, nails the focus and then points the camera in a different direction until the fateful second then turns and shoots his subject. Very well executed and disguised.

Michael

Flotsam said:

From my observations over the years it seems to have to do with the price of the camera.

Snapshot = Cheap Camera
Portrait = Expensive Camera
Character Study = Expensive Camera + Black and White Film

Click to expand...

Surely it's the price of the film, not the camera, that determines the difference?

Digital - no film - snapshot
35mm - fairly cheap pr. exposure - snapshot, but could be portrait sometimes.
MF - expensive film - portrait, sometimes Character Study.
LF - Environmental Portrait or Character Study

Interesting topic, and one filled with semantic issues and personal value judgements, I think.

To the casual PWC (person with camera), everything is a snapshot, with no value judgement attached. In most cases, snapshots are made with cameras that allow few, if any controls, and the photo is taken (as opposed to "made") with little concern for compositional values. In contrast, to the "serious" photographer, "snapshot" is a derogatory term, an insult.

A "portrait" probably carries some inferred meaning as to use, as well. Even if the portrait doesn't conform the "classical" requirements, it is usually (always?) staged, done with the subject's knowledge and consent, and is intended to provide a formal representation of the subject. It's meant to be framed and sit on someone's mantel, or hang on the wall. Thus, a portrait is different than a "head shot", for example, because the intended use differs. When the portrait is done in a documentary manner (e.g. Lange's work for the government), however, the definitions start to get fuzzy.

Then, there's the whole semantics thing. For example, did Karsch "snap" the shutter? Well, yes, but does that make his portraits snapshots? My guess is that few people would think so. Do photojournalists take snapshots? Well, kind of, but not really.

So, bottom line, there probably is no answer that would be universally accepted. But, it makes a great topic of discussion over coffee or some other favored beverage.

I would think by now, 150 years into the game, that people would have realized and gotten comfortable with the reality that photography confounds intent at every turn. Yet here we are in this thread, a bit like the dog lounging in the dining room, staring at the bottom of the dinner table as if our gaze would by itself eventually produce some goodies. What sort of look will produce bread, or what sort of big-eyed stare will bring down the bacon?

What separates a snapshot from, say, photojournalism? Surely the most influential news photos of 2004 were snaps knocked off by a 20-something bozo at Abu Ghraib. Avedon with the Windsors, Karsh with Churchill, Steichen with Rockerfeller -- all lasting portraits made in moments of darkroom surprise and confounded intentions -- both of the photographers and the sitters. This disparity between What We Want and What the Lens Records is at the heart of what Avedon in later years called "the terror of photography" and why he was so happy to advocate the idea that All Photos Lie. Curtis's indians were real enough, but he often brought the costumes for them himself. What was his intent? What was theirs? Maybe a "snap" would have been more honest? Or was his desire to neatly contain the remnants of their culture exactly the most honest and telling statement? Did he unintentionally make a snapshot of 19th-century white American imperialistic attitudes?

A portrait is what you say it is.