Your opinion

Well i'd say (taking a less technical view):

A snapshot just gives you a visual representation of a person and how that person looks at a given time/place. It doesnt gives you much more or leave you thinking much more beyond that.

A portrait additionally tries to capture something about the person's personality/character or emotional state and that is more the focus or point of the image.

Granted the lines between the two are blurred. All my opinion of course. Feel free to agree/disagree or add.
 
I think a snapshot defines a casual way of working rather than a subject.

The difference between a good portrait and an average one is surely about capturing an element of personality or character.

When we talk about great portrait photographs we are often referring to a well known person, as that is how we are able to make some judgement about character. Quite often they are less great portraits, and more just photos of someone that we recognise, using good technical skills.

I have a portrait of my late father which I would say is a very good portrait as it shows an aspect of him that everyone in the family recognises. Technically it is sound, but nothing special. But if you were to look at it, I think you would simply say it was a nice picture.

However, if my father had been a well known personality, then you too might say it was really pretty good. Nothing about the subject or the technique would have changed, but your perception of it being good, bad or indifferent would be different.

If that makes any sense ;)
 
yes, makes perfect sense

I think the lines lie with the frame and the person, meaning what is in the frame and how much of the person the image captures, - as well as come composition.

I think a portrait has logic behind each element, whereas a snapshot is just what is there at the time without a great deal of thought put into it.

A snapshot captures a moment, a portrait captures a story?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top