My main question, or at least topic for discussion, is whether ambiguity is an invitation to interpretation. I notice that very often a photo that seems to show something narrative (or even just an event part of which remains unshown or undefined) is often appreciated for the many literal/factual/hypothetical interpretations that can fill in the blanks of the photo. While this may sometimes provide amusement or interest, or even perceptual depth, other than in a forensic or strictly documentary or journalistic photo, can it also be a distraction at times? That is, is literary/verbal storytelling different from photographic/visual storytelling and can the instinct to interpret ambiguities in a photo actually mean missing some of the unique experience that is visual ambiguity? Mind you, I'm not talking about the practice of analyzing photos critically, especially in a critique setting such as PN has to offer. We may address exposure, composition, perspective, contrast and talk about how it makes us feel or how it affects what a photo is about or what it seems to be communicating. (And I know some people find this distracting to a more aesthetic appreciation of a photo.) But this is not what I'm talking about here. I think that's different from literal interpretation, especially interpretation in the sense of trying to guess what was actually going on when the photo was taken if it's not obvious in the photo itself. A woman dressed in fur and frills, aristocratic in appearance, is looking into a fancy antique shop and we see the shadow of someone inside the shop who she may appear to be talking to. Can we leave it at that or are we moved to guess at who the shadow belongs to so we can piece together a literal story out of what we see? I'm not saying all of us have to view photos similarly or should follow the same practice regarding interpretation and I'm also not saying any one of us should or would look at every photo with the same degree of guessing or interpretation. I'm questioning to what extent you do this and I'm wondering if it can be or you've ever found that it is a distraction to a less literal way of viewing photos. If some degree of mystique, ambiguity, or unanswered questions can be a good thing in a photo, do we undermine that when we try to resolve those questions or ambiguities by supplying interpretations that complete what is often an incomplete picture? Is incompleteness part of the beauty of many photos, which put a frame around an isolated part of the world, often removing information and context? Can a viewer err by trying to put back those missing parts of the photographic world created by the frame?