My opinion about the difference between a photo and a picture.

These two words are often used as synonyms. I would dare to differentiate between them, because in my opinion a picture does not have the same value as a photo. A picture is nothing but a simple picture, often neglected in terms of framing. As an example, you can think of a visitor who clicks in all parts and gets pictures of buildings or horizons horizontally inclined and perfectly centered in the center.

If we talk about photography, we think of art, or at least trying to get images that respect certain aesthetic rules and have a symbolism, to have value. Contrary to appearances, the difference between a photo and a picture is not in the camera used. We can get artistic images using an analogue camera, a professional one, but even a phone. A person who owns a professional camera and expensive lenses does not automatically become a professional photographer or artist. So, before investing serious money in the equipment, ask yourself if you will use it to its maximum capacity ... and here I am not just referring to the technical settings.

The value of a photo is also given by technical knowledge, but above all by the artistic sense of the person behind the apparatus. So, think twice before telling a photographer, "wow, what great pictures take out your device." Most likely he will feel offended. Yes, it is true that an expensive device will be very fast and will help us get very clear images that will surprise us, but a photo does not become valuable just by its clarity. That image must tell a story, it must impress our eyes, heart and mind.

This short post is only a personal opinion and should be taken as such. I wish you good day and write as many stories as you can with photos.

  THANKS FOR VISIT