dirty dave

In the late 70,s when I started my mentor told me the difference between a picture and a photograph is, a photograph you control the lighting, staging,position of your camera and posing if possible. Even landscape you have some control as well as the processing. ( I know with digital we now have more control in pp) A picture is taken of a moment with little or no control of the conditions. So I always say when I am doing a wedding there will be both Photos and Pictures as I understand it. The photos will be what I set up the pictures will be what is going on at the time. Lately I have gotten some backlash from other younger photographers that say there is no difference. I never argue I just smile and go on. I do more weddings than most of them anyway. So here is my guestion is this a old out of date ideal, did my mentor just tell me wrong, or does this hold true, or does it just hold true to a point?

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

A totally false distinction, in my view. I think your mentor just told you wrong -- and I started working professionally in the 70s too.

Cheers,

R.

ebaribeault Loc: Baltimore

I agree with your mentor

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

My experience is that many -by no means all - of the newer photographers think everything they shoot is perfect. They think the term "snapshot" is degrading -it is not - it just describes a shot taken without regard to optimizing positioning, lighting, expression, etc.

So yes, there is a difference, but I think there is a sliding scale and not sure exactly where the break is. I have seen tons of "lifestyle" photographers who just take people outside and shoot a bunch of snapshots - I am sure they think it is a photograph. :-0 But once in a while one of those images actually is great - usually an accident, but great. They did make a photograph!

thefunxtr Loc: Atlanta

Interesting ... I don't do weddings, but I think some of my best "photos" were not only spontaneous, but ablolutey "non-reproduceable" situations that you could never "set up" or "control" lighting, etc. I guess I understand the concept somewhat when applied to ONLY wedding photography (pre-emptively stating that "candids" might not be as good as "posed"), but then ... do "wildlife photographers" only take "pictures" and never "photographs"? Hmmm ...

dirty dave

good thought but some of the pro wildlife photographers that I have meet you would not believe the lighting and staging they go thru and lighting triggers it is amazing what they go thru with. If you ever get a chance to work with one it is amazing what they do and go thru with.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Agreed - wildlife photography is a whole different animal.


That was too easy.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

So Cartier-Bresson, Salgado, Ronis, Raghubir Singh, and all the other great reportage photographers never took photographs, just pictures? Or for that matter, look at the work of Jane Bown: anyone who is not familiar with her work (and anyone who cares about photography should be), Google her name.

"Photos" versus "pictures" is about as meaningless a pseudo-distinction as I have ever heard. Even if you limit it to wedding photography, plenty of reportage-style photographers take better photographs than plenty of hacks who do it the old-fashioned way. (And, of course, plenty are worse too.)

Cheers,

R.

dirty dave

calm down I am looking for the distiction between controled photos and uncontroled photos and how to label them I don't judge others work or because (and I will be scorned for this) I find Ansel Adams boring.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

Well, haven't you just described that perfectly? Some are controlled, and some aren't. This has little or no bearing on their quality, and none whatsoever on whether they are 'pictures' or 'photographs'.

Cheers,

R.

Popparotc Loc: Newportnews Va.

I also agree. My mentor back in the 60s told me that Digital was a fleeting Fad.

thefunxtr Loc: Atlanta

Hmmm ... "That was too easy"? ... CaptainC, I have followed a lot of your posts and viewed your website and have a lot of respect for your work, but now I am trying to figure out if that was supposed to be an insult or not? I guess maybe my point didn't come across very well. I might have picked "sports" photographers instead of "wildlife" photographers. I understand and respect that there is a lot of "setup" that a wildlife (or "sports", etc.) photographer can do to "prepare" for a shoot, but that's not anywhere near the same as the "control" discussed previously with wedding photography. If that same guy just happens to be in a canoe fishing one day (and of course his camera is very close because he's "prepared") and he sees a hawk coming close and grabs his camera just in time to catch the hawk snatching a fish from the lake ... that is by no means a "controlled" setup, but might result in a fabulous shot (is that a "picture", not a "photograph"?)

thefunxtr Loc: Atlanta

Well put Roger ... (that was the point I was trying to make earlier, but yours came across much more directly!)

tkhphotography Loc: Gresham, Or, not Seattle

agree, his mentor was/is wrong.......hopefully that was his only bad advice and was able to teach him some good otherwise.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

Dear Larry,

This is my problem with the argument, too.

There are good photographs and bad photographs.

"Good" and "bad" have nothing to do with setting up lights, posing, or controlling. Less than nothing, sometimes: control freaks are sometimes very good photographers, and sometimes very bad photographers, and with the bad ones, their attempts to control things can make them worse.

For me, perhaps the strongest argument against invented distinctions between "pictures" and "photographs" is that this is a new one on me, after around 46 years as an amateur and something like 37 years as a professional. A professional, I might add, who has earned his living at least as much from writing about photography as from taking pictures to illustrate the books and articles. Precision in language matters to me.

I once had an editor who was convinced that there are major differences between 'further' and 'farther'. But I was taught that they are principally regional variations.

In other words, unless there is a generally agreed distinction -- as, for example, between "its" and "it's" or "your" and "you're" -- such ideas as the distinction between "photographs" and "pictures" are bees-in-bonnets held by individuals and can safely be ignored by anyone with any regard for the English language or indeed photography.

Cheers,

R.