>>2068596 (OP)
I have no idea what I'm looking at.
There's a start

>>2068596 (OP)

you dont /p/s standard of whats a good photo is so extreme. ansel adams himself couldnt comprehend just how amazing a good photo must be for /p/

snapshit = "hurr i do not understnad dis bhotato"

According to /p/:

Color digital = snapshit
B&W digital = photo
film = art

>>2068598
Did you read the post...

>>2068596 (OP)
Do you have a higher res version? I dig this.

>How does one take their photos from /p/'s standard of a snapshit to /p/'s standard of an actual photo?
I shoot street. All street photos are snapshits. I don't really think about it.

Photos have good composition, snapshits dont.

>subjective

>>2068688
>this is what snapshitters truly beleive

A snapshot is something you see and think this looks cool so you capture it. A photo has some actual thought behind, whether its telling a story, presenting a form or whatever else, what matters is that it is deliberately constructed, not just "captured".
There are obviously exceptions, but I don't think it is wrong to say, the difference between a snapshot and a photograph is the thought behind it.
"Snapshit" is weird though because it implies the bad quality of the photograph comes from it being a snapshot. I find this weird because snapshots can be good or bad just like photographs can be good or bad.

>>2068703
context and intent are everything

Snapshit is a simple declaration of lack of education, abuse of respect for others and a total acceptance of ability to troll, badly

>>2068719
Context, Intent, and composition.

I'd say one of the biggest detractors of a "snapshot" is that people fire the shutter in the direction of the subject in order to capture it for a memory, with little to no thought of composition, framing, distracting elements, color, light, and edge cropping.

If a photo is actually planned, and that planning is obvious from the composition, lighting, perspective, settings used (not blurry or shaky, with a pleasing depth of field (either large or small, but intentional)) then it is not a snapshot. It may still be a bad photo, but it's not a snapshot.

it's usually pretty obvious

if it was a landscape where the photographer could have set up a grad ND and tripod, and didn't, then he's probably a snapshitter

if it's a posed portrait and the subject is heavily backlit, with a distracting background, probably a snapshitter.

conversely, by definition most street and sports shots are snapshots because that's all the time there is.

>>2068596 (OP)
First of all, /p/ is not one person with one standard or preferred aesthetic.

Second of all, I'm curious as to why you would even want to worry about what the majority of angry /p/ anons think about photography.

>>2068662
I believe this is the full photo, not sure though as I'm on mobile right now.

>>2069110
Well shit, definitely was the full version, will upload to imgur tomorrow morning.

>>2068703
I actually agree with this. "Snapshots" are usually about the place, the location, the subject, without bringing much in the way of personal style or authority to the image. BUT, there are many good (and even very very good) "snapshots", so I get annoyed when people here only use it in a derogatory sense, as if photographing an interesting subject, light or whatever is inherently wrong.

Even if "proper photography" is the evolved form of "snapshots" (which I don't agree with because it implies that you should have to "tell stories" and can't just enjoy good looking photos of things that interesting), the latter can be very engaging. I love taking "snapshots" because it forces me to go out, I try to avoid repeating locations and such too often and enjoy exploring and looking for new and interesting things, albeit with some idea of what I want already.

Snapshitting is the act of pointing your camera at something that attracts your attention, and firing without thinking.

Snapshitters don't know why something attracts their eye.
They don't bother to think about color, composition, framing and light, and why something caught their eye in the first place.

Snapshitters take photos from of their windowseat

>>2068607
/thread

>>2068596 (OP)
Basically OP, if you can talk around your shit then it is a good photo. "I really thought the midtones expressed the emotions of the scene"
For more examples see modern art

a snapshit is a picture you think is interesting and you take it.

a photo is a picture you like and plan out how you take it.

Anything more then that and you're just being retarded.

for me, a snapshit, while capable of being aesthetically pleasing, implies that anyone with a smart phone could have taken it.

A photograph is something that the eye does not always notice or evokes an emotional/cognitive inspiration.

I've taken some great snapshits, probably wouldn't put them under glass, though.

>>2069300
Then what about street photography? Someone can capture a picture of a father holding his son's hand and it could invoke an emotional/cognitive inspiration but have been a spur of the moment capture without any forethought.

I think the whole thing is a typical 4chan tactic to sling shit at each other and make themselves feel better.

File: 1375616571940.jpg-(43 KB, 400x600, 00141180-y600px.jpg)

43 KB JPG

>>2069270
>Anything more then that and you're just being retarded.
partly this
>>2069315
>4chan tactic to sling shit at each other
partly this
Like all good arguable things: there is truth in both ends of the spectrum of debate, but very few people ever bother to experience both ends of the debate. It's all just somewhere between black and white... same diff really. Different horses for different courses.
In /p/ I think mostly it's people who like to think they make art being too slow and pensive about every motive to get shots that require more spontaneity. Or are newbies who take such black and white opinion as truth... instead of a vast spectrum of options.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-5
Camera Software	RawTherapee
Photographer	Andrew Wade Eglington oh-hi.info
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	450 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	400
Image Height	600
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2013:08:04 11:39:24
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	2000
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	300.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

There are basically two vastly different traditions of photography. For the other one photography is a participatory thing, a social rite that results in disposable images -- snapshots.

On the other side of the spectrum there are people who use photography for artistic self expression -- they produce photographs.

Commercial photography like events and photojournalism are somewhere in between.

So if you do photography for the sake of the image itself, and actually put some thought into your creative process, you produce photographs. And if you do it to share on social media, you produce snapshots. It's the thought/intention that counts.

>>2069300
>for me, a snapshit, while capable of being aesthetically pleasing, implies that anyone with a smart phone could have taken it.
So it all comes down to gear, huh? Never change /p/.

>>2069378
>intentionally misinterprets post
Yeah, never change

>>2069374
Yeah, nah. It isn't as black and white as that. If I walk around the city with the intention of capturing candid moments of genuine emotion in the people I encounter, I'm not planning out a specific image nor am I creating a snapshot because I may not intend on sharing it on social media or view it as a disposable image.

The idea that photos that aren't good enough are only "snapshits" is goddamn retarded. Whether a photo is good or not is entirely subjective. For it to be a real "photograph" doesn't require any specific amount of effort, equipment or quality - if it's an image captured by a camera, it's a fucking photograph.

Furthermore, a landscape photo someone spent hours setting up and capturing on large format doesn't automatically have more merit than a shot you took of your cat at home.

The use of "snapshot" or "snapshit" as a derisive term is mainly used by butthurt neckbeards who are upset that casuals are getting into their precious hobby. Same reason everyone gets up in arms when someone makes an Instagram thread. Some people feel threatened because of others making art they deem shallow when they aren't serious about it, as if it actually affects them in some way. Everyone should take photos, and they can if they want to. Things like Instagram and Lomo are healthy for the industry - Enthusiasts often mock these things like they're making photography worse. They're not, there are simply more people taking photos and sharing them online, so there are more "bad" photos to see.

Acting like photography is some kind of sacred artform where only x type of photo is allowed is complete and utter bullshit.

>>2069391
Anyone who says art is subjective is just making a cop out excuse cause they don't understand it and don't have the balls to admit they are clueless.

A snapshit has no thought put into it or does not contain any context that provokes thought, and has little if any compositional value. ie. most of the rubbish that gets posted in /p/.

So much drivel gets said in this place, it's mostly just a gear forum with aesthetic wannabes in a big circle jerk.

>>2069417
>Anyone who says art is subjective is just copping out
No, they aren't. You just thoroughly convinced yourself that anybody who dares disagree with you or challenges your viewpoint is wrong, a bad photographer, and has a bone to pick. That's just plain incorrect.

>A snapshit has no thought composition context etc. muh art
...except I'm certain most of the shots here were put together with at least some form of thought, some feeling, some emotion. Regardless /p/ will shit on them, and it comes across as lazy and ignorant because it's pretty much "I didn't like it enough to write anything thoughtful about it, so it's a snapshit lol". And while yes the shot might not be that great, "snapshit" is not a valid form of critique because such a term is so vague and meaningless.

>So much drivel gets said in this place, it's mostly just a gear forum with aesthetic wannabes in a big circle jerk.
Except for you, right? Self-aggrandize yourself some more. Keep telling yourself the problems on this board with the quality of photography and critique is due to just about everybody except for your.

>>2069440
>this is the behavior of a snapshitter
The guy you are arguing is exactly right, and you sound like you haven't progressed past photo 101

>>2069485
Thanks for proving the point in my first line.

>>2069490
That you are a snapshitter? No need to thank me. Just go read a book on composition or something. Id probably suggest reading it 3 or 4 times as you are quite dense

>>2069497
haha wow.

>>2068596 (OP)
you can't inb4 in op