Should a Picture tell a story ?

[jennifer_durand]

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

 

Al, this is a generalization and you need to name names now. Who in your opinion went to

teach beacuse they couldn't hack it as a photographer?

 

In the years you describe there were certainly photographers with degrees and who did

courses in photography. We all appreciate that not everyone had the chance to study

photography and that many people learnt what they know by reading. Maybe photography

was not your highest priority at that time. Today photography is catered for in most

colleges and univerisites.

 

Many professional photographers and artists using photography opt to teach for pracical

reasons and for variety. They are able to network with a larger number of people

interested in their subject and maybe their work.

[john falkenstine]

No.

[hjoseph7]

"Many professional photographers and artists using photography opt to teach for pracical reasons and for variety"

 

Also to help pay their bills. Some of my teachers only worked at the school Part-time. During the day they were doing other things dealing with photography. Teaching is not a bad job if you are a free lance photographer. It gives you the option of traveling during the summer season, plus it keeps the cash coming in.

[al_kaplan1]

You're right, Jennifer. It is a generalization, and it's a saying that's far older than I am. Also, many people in a lot of fields make great teachers even if they're not tops in their field.

[trina1]

yes, i think it should. i am just begining, and i love photos that have a story to tell or a feeling to portray to us. overall i believe they are better...

[jacob_brown]

<i>"The fact that photographs - they're mute, they don't have any narrative ability at all. You know what something looks like, but you don't know what's happening, you don't know whether the hat's being held or is it being put on her head or taken off her head. From the photograph, you don't know that. A piece of time and space is well described. But not what is happening. <p>

 

I think that there isn?t a photograph in the world that has any narrative ability. Any of 'em. They do not tell stories - they show you what something looks like. To a camera. The minute you relate this thing to what was photographed - it's a lie. It's two-dimensional. It's the illusion of literal description."<p>

</i>

 

- Garry Winogrand

[fullmetalphotograper]

Harry,

I am going to respectfully disagree with you here. Technique is what makes a difficult situation come together to make a good image. If the content of an image was good then yes it would run but, if it is unrecognizable then it won?t run.

 

Technique is the means to capture and make the most of the image. Just as in the old film days the better the image the capture in the camera the better the results will be. I learned a long time ago, there are those who talk about taking photos and those who take photos. I would not worry to much about people telling you how not to take an image. I might listen to people trying to help you improve your images. Technique does not come without failures. You just have to learn from it.<div></div>

[jennifer_durand]

Photographs themselves say nothing, people do. What you read into the photograph is of

your making - not the photograph telling a story. When they say a picture says a thousand

words, they were worng - it says countless millions of words becasue every person will

attach their own story according to their life's experience.

 

Sometimes artists and photographers put words or texts with their images which we have

to be careful we don't attach too much emphasis on. The words may be there to inform us,

trick us, play on our emotions and weaknesses or jest with us.

 

Some photographers make images look real but they have photographed are cardboard

models. What does this say about the photographer and what does this say about

photography? I believe these photographers are warning us that we shouldn't take things,

especially photographs, too seriously.

 

Lighten up and just enjoy the image for the moment, don't expect too much from it.

[hjoseph7]

I was just going through some of the Back Posts and it looks like this subject was disscussed before on a much deeper level

"WHERE IS THE BACK STORY

Marios Lefteriotis, May 24, 2007; 10:22 a.m."

 

I guess everybody has their own style and their own philosophies, I'm still trying to develop mine. Photography serves different purposes for different people. I myslef shoot assmbly line photos for little laeague sports on weekends where art is minimally involved. I do remeber that during our critiques in class the students use to pause infront of the pictures that had a story to tell. They would admire the technically astute photo's even comenting on how beautiful they were, but the pcitures with a story behind them made them pause, made them think, and they would come back and view it again as if trying to make sense of it and so did I.

[jim_e.]

Technically correct photos are commented on and forgotten. My feelings aren't too precious to admit such a fact. A great photograph doesn't require technical perfection or even the attempt. It requires being there at the right moment when something spectacular and unforgettable occurs and being close enough to capture it.

 

How many Pulitzers were won with a camera stuck on a tripod?

[Nowhereman]

I agree with Mike Dixon that, like painting, there is nothing that photographs are

"supposed to do." Harry, you may be pleased with your credentials, but, frankly you're

asking a naive question for someone who has studied photography, which indicates

that you still don't know what is a photograph. As for cerdentials, don't forget that a

photographer is only as good as his or her next picture.

<p>

As for telling a story you can lool at my book project <a href="http://www.flickr.com/

photos/10268776@N00/sets/72157594271568487/show/"><u>here</u>,</a>

 

which I think of <i>depicting</i> something (life in a huge, chaotic, tropical city) rather

than simply telling a story, although you might find an element of that also, perhaps the

way a poem may tell a story.

<p>

--Mitch/Potomac, MD

[dickhilker]

An old advertising maxim holds that, "the medium is the message." For a photograph, that suggests that the quality of the image should support and be appropriate to the message it seeks to convey.

 

When we want to create a stunning landscape, everything should be technically as good as it can be, but when the image itself has great emotional impact, then the capture of that moment is paramount and everything else is secondary.

 

Sometimes, we have the luxury of being able to carefully plan a picture, but other times it just happens and we have to make the most of what presents itself. The most important thing, I feel, is to make a picture that's coherent and does what you intend it to do.

[hjoseph7]

Very Nice "Photo Essay" Mitch. You are using many photos that depict the life of Urban South East Asian people, but I still don't see any specific story behind it. What point are you trying to make, what are you trying to say is universal. If you had to communicate something to another person on the other side of the world and you counld not use words just pictures how would you do it ?

 

Of course not every picture has to have a fantastic story behind it. Allot of Ansel Adams photos are replica's of nature. What we marvel at is how well a 'copy' he made of nature.

 

You and Mike Dixon might vehemently disagree, but that was on of the first things my mentor who was a former Professional Photographer and has since passed away told me when I purchased my first SLR eons ago.

[david j.lee]

no. they shouldn't.

[ilkka_nissila]

I have never seen an Ansel Adams print which even remotely resembles the actual scene. "Replica of nature" couldn't be further from the truth.

 

I don't care if a picture tells a story. I think too much emphasis is put into this aspect. You can try to tell a story with pictures, but in order to attach the right meaning to pictures, you need words to make the associations. Pictures can illustrate a written story - definitely. But very few stories can be told effectively using just pictures. And why should they? When better means of communicating the message are available.

 

Pictures can be used for various purposes. Illustration is one where they work very well. They can also be pieces of art by themselves to be appreciated for their visual beauty. I think it's highly artificial to require that they should always tell stories.

[christopher_graham1]

I have found the opposite to be true. I have spent most of my time over the last few months learning technical skills. (yes I haven't been doing this long). My technical skills aren't perfect by any means but pretty good anyway. When people look at my photos though the criticism I hear more than any other is The subject isn't interesting, or there is no story/emotion/feeling here worth taking a picture of. I think the last time people looked at one of my pictures they said something like. Good composition, The light is very well done, Nice balance, But the subject isn't all that interesting. Why should I care about that? I think it was a building that I thought looked very interesting to me the shape and colors were cool but it was just a building. I guess the thing is it depends on your audience. If you are seeking the applaud of other photographers expect to hear your technical skills ripped apart. If you are taking photographs for the public then the story and subject are more important. If you want to take a truly great photograph you have to hit both. Who do you take pictures for? That is the first question. How do I speak to them with an image of this? That is the second question.

[david j.lee]

Ilkka, i agree. Edward Weston said something similar in his daybooks about if he wanted to

say something, he would write a letter or just say it.

[hjoseph7]

"If you are seeking the applaud of other photographers expect to hear your technical skills ripped apart. If you are taking photographs for the public then the story and subject are more important. If you want to take a truly great photograph you have to hit both. Who do you take pictures for?"

 

People we are not saying that a picture should tell "The Latest Harry Potter trilogy" that's ridiculous. However if you look at some of the greatest paintings in the world there is a story behind them. Let's take a look at the Mona Lisa. Why is this simple portrait of a Governor's official wife draw so much attention.

 

Some say it's the smile, some say it's the weird background, nobody can put their finger on it and that is the story behind this portrait.

 

Like Chris said if you take a stack of some of the technically best made photos from this site and show them to somebody like my mother who knows nothing about photography, she will rifle trough those pictures in no time flat, not even remembering the last one she saw.

 

On the other hand, If you were to show her a picture with a subject that was vaguely familiar, right away she would stop and say this is a good picture. Try this magic trick, yourself at home sometime.

[Nowhereman]

<i>You are using many photos that depict the life of Urban South East Asian people, but I

still don't see any specific story behind it. What point are you trying to make, what are you

trying to say is universal. If you had to communicate something to another person on the

other side of the world and you counld not use words just pictures how would you do it ?

</i>

<p>

Sorry, Harry, but this is pretty simple-minded stuff. As Louis B. Mayer of MGM used to say

to directors who wanted to make a movie that had "meaning": if you have a message, send

a telegram. If I wanted to

tell a story I wouldn't do it with photography. A photograph -- I'm talking about art now

-- doesn't have to tell a story: it's like a poem. And your last posting suggests that a

photograph has to be understood by your mother, but that is not the case: a photograph,

like a poem, does not have to be easy to understand; it can be a complex work of art that

can only be understaood by someone who is willing to make an effort to understand it and

may need some background in art or art history to do so. You could get a lot more

understanding for the visual arts, including photography, by reading the introduction to

<i>The Story of Art</i> by EH Gombrich, which is easily available and probably the best

introduction to art history.

<p>

Here are two photographs that I consider to be good: warning -- they do not tell a story,

unless you want them to by putting your own experience into them.

<p>

<center><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/216/535760075_48ae580174_o.jpg"

width=864 height=570></center>

<p>

<center><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/162/416294777_1cda833265_o.jpg"

width=864 height=575></center>

<p>

--Mitch/Potomac, MD

[hjoseph7]

Technically they are very good, but sorry I'm having trouble understanding why you took the pictures in the first place. Where you trying to show the audience the style of the man's shirt or the woman's dress, maybe the kitchen decor is SE Asia ? Contemporary life in SE Asia. The man is looking away from the camera as if ashamed or busy doing his homework. Both women have their eyes lowered, one of them looks like she is cooking something. All three subject look emotionless. Soft light is coming from the window, illuminating the subjects faces. Maybe it would have been nice If you placed those fish on the table for emphasis. It's a good picture nevertheless it just needs a little bit more LIFE. These are the type of questions an Artist might ask.

[david j.lee]

exactly. Art should make the viewer ask himself questions, not give him answers. that's your

part of the job, not the artist's.

[david j.lee]

this reminded me to the "great photographers on the internet" article from the

onlinephotographer. can be easely googled or maybe somebody can help me posting the

link?

[hjoseph7]

Now compare Mitch's photograph to this :

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Arnolfini_Portrait

 

Happy reading.

[david j.lee]

let's see if this works:

 

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-

internet.html

[hjoseph7]

David while you're trying to fix that link, can you post a couple of your pictures. Thanks