just what is a snapshit, anyway? [EXIF data available. Click

Your body of work.

A question for the ages. Any photo someone else deems not having had enough thought, effort, time and/or investment put into its making. That intangible thing separating "photography" from a person with a camera pressing the shutter button. Extremely subjective, extremely situational/contextual. A series of snapshits concentrating on one topic or place can become a legitimate body of work. You'll know when you see one.

It would be fun if people posted photos ITT and others commented whether they're snapshits or not, to illustrate this.

Photos who can't properly join concept + composition + perspective + manual camera settings + post processing

>>3014805
thanks for a thoughtful response.

>It would be fun if people posted photos ITT and others commented whether they're snapshits or not, to illustrate this.

start with mine if you want, shot that last week. didnt frame it very well (still working on this 'get closer' thing)

File: IMGP1178-2.jpg (662KB, 1400x1178px) Image search: [Google]

662KB, 1400x1178px

Here's a photo

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-50
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:17 03:31:19
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>3014805
thats bollocks. if you say "extremely subjective" youre saying "it could be anything". faggot.

photography lives in the social. a snapshit is a shot that doesnt have value (sometimes not even to the own shooter). as simple as that. a photo can be super untechnical, uncompositional, unwhatever, but if other people not involved in it find value in it, its cant be a snapshit.

OP photo is a snapshit because no one would give a rats ass about that photo, not even him. He might, a little, because he took it and in his head there is the memory of the guy doing an amazing face one second prior the photo, or because he thought the guy would find him peeping so he had an adrenalin rush in that exact moment. So this photo is a reference to his memory, it works only to him, as an emotional souvenir of what could have been a better photo or him overcoming his comfort zone, but as an actual photo, its really nothing for the rest of people.

File: rsz_horrendous.jpg (636KB, 677x1000px) Image search: [Google]

636KB, 677x1000px

>>3014868
>if you say "extremely subjective" youre saying "it could be anything". faggot.
>a photo can be super untechnical, uncompositional, unwhatever, but if other people not involved in it find value in it, its cant be a snapshit.

:^)

>>3014807
snapshit.
uncomposed "street" guy leaning on box shallow dof b/w. nothing worthy pressing the shutter button in that frame, no content to take interest in, nothing memorable. same level of involvement as autistic cloud spammer guy here.

>>3014865
That's a photo. Meticulously framed and composed, the composition of the elements being the subject, with a definitive characteristic style that lets me recognise your works posted throughout various other threads. Eye catching.

Uploading what I consider a total snapshit.

>>3014880
how is this not 'meticulously framed and composed'?

>>3015148
It is, but it was a thoughtless "hur arkitektchur symmetry point camra shoot nice shape" thing. This thing doesnt convey anything, doesn't show anything, there's no subject, no message, no lasting value, just "this is the inside of a building someone designed". It's worthless. Boring. Unoriginal. Brainless. I took it to prove a point.

>>3015177
was your point that you're not capable of similar precision?
Or do you not see how badly you fucked yours up?
Heh, visual illiterates.

>>3014864
This isn't a snapshit, but it's not quite a photograph either...what to think?!?

>>3014870
>>3014869
>>3014867
>>3014864
>>3014863
if processed a bit better these could be a really nice little series on fenomenology

>>3015186
Define
>processed a bit better

File: Untitled-1.jpg (106KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 600x600px

>>3014805
>It would be fun if people posted photos ITT and others commented whether they're snapshits or not, to illustrate this.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:04 01:26:33
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	600
Image Height	600

File: NY-0061[1].jpg (504KB, 1633x1252px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 1633x1252px

look at this pleb tier Nineteenth-Century snapshit

fucking pathetic. thoughtless framing and skewed horizon. whoever took that should just kill themselves

>>3015407
i dislike the shades of blue here, too much green, and the shadows on the clouds could be a tad deeper.

>>3015411
a snapshit with potential for being a photograph.

>>3015470
i took it while going down the highway at 60mph ;9

File: bliss.jpg (3KB, 100x63px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 100x63px

Oh shit!