| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/19/2005 03:40:58 PM · #1 |
Today I came across Imagineer's image, Boy to Man, and left the following comment on it:
Great mood to this shot. I love the worn wooden deck of the bridge and the contrast between it's texture and that of the wonderfully skewed metal side panels. Composition is superb with the swooping curve of the suspension cables plus the echo between deck and clear sky. I don't know whether the nostalgic feel comes from my having read your comments or from the image itself...
Imagineer contacted me and said: Thanks for your thoughtful comment on 'Boy to Man'. Interesting about the last point too. Does this mean that photos can be more meaningful if a story is told prior to seeing it?
(I hope he won't mind my bringing this discussion to the forums as I do think it's one that is very interesting).
Here's my response:
I think they often can, though nothing is universal.
That's why many artists will insist on an explanatory plaque being placed beside their work when displayed in a gallery. Sometimes the work of art is NOT just the visual but the visual and supporting material taken as a whole.
Whilst there's always a raging argument on DPC about whether it's right to use titles to explain/ enhance the shot (and I do sometimes agree that some titles are poorly used to do so), in the wider world most art is presented with a title and much of it with additional text too.
Message edited by author 2005-03-19 15:59:14.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 04:00:30 PM · #2 |
Most people are curious about the world around them, and very few are mind readers.
Therefore it only stands to reason that knowing something about the photo - above and beyond what the eye can see and what we can guess from it - increases our enjoyment of it.
I like a good title that helps me interpret what I'm looking at - it won't win you any prizes if the photo is useless, but it certainly can enhance a good pic even further. |
|
|
|
03/19/2005 04:06:44 PM · #3 |
Kavey, I believe nearly all images can be more meaningful "if a story is told" in addition to the image. It's one reason why many photos here on DPC are far more interesting and meaningful to the one making the photo, than to those viewing/voting on it.
The verbal story places a scene into context. It says something about why that scene/image was photographed, what the photographer had in mind when he/she made it.
I always try to give a title that adds a little more meaning to my images. Better would be if I could elaborate on why, when, and where an image was made. While we're visual animals, what makes us uniquely human is our verbal ability. A picture may be worth 1000 words, but a few words can tell you which 1000 words to associate with the picture...
Message edited by author 2005-03-19 16:07:41. |
|
|
|
03/19/2005 04:12:54 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
A picture may be worth 1000 words, but a few words can tell you which 1000 words to associate with the picture... |
I think this is an excellent way to express this idea.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 04:14:48 PM · #5 |
Kavey, it is a very interesting question. I think knowing the story can enhance the feeling of the photo or it can take away from it. For instance, with imagineer's photo (which I like very much) and no explanation one could say, "Oh, a man walking on a bridge." or they could imagine on their own what the photographer is trying to convey. Sometimes the viewer's ideas are right and sometimes they are wrong. (Edit) That can be good or bad depending on the situation. They may really play up a photo or they may play it down from its original intent. (/Edit) With an explanation (here the title is a condensed explanation) one can better relate to the photographer's vision. So, instead of seeing "some man walking on a bridge" they can relate to the nostalgia of the the boy crossing into manhood. I think with with imagineer's image, the title, while not being a short novel, conveys the message nicely.
On the other hand, if the person in the above photo was a total stranger, there would be no 'story'. In that case, it would be better to not say anything and let people feel what they will. I mean, people will (generally) like an image better if the comment reads, "My best friend, walking the bridge he played on as a child in Tain, Scotland." than if it read, "Just some guy I saw walking on this bridge." Which has more impact? Imagineer's description contains more interest than the latter.
In some cases, images don't need an explanation at all. They are just a picture of an animal, or an abstract, or a random tree, etc. I think it's up to the photographer to decide if their 'story' is necessary to the image. Although that doesn't matter here for the challenges.
I think I just babbled a lot of jibberish. I'll end here.
Jen
Message edited by author 2005-03-19 16:17:03.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 04:26:18 PM · #6 |
Butterflysis
I totally agree that some images work best without supporting text (whether title or separate passage). Certainly those where there isn't a specific story to tell often work best if left open to the viewer to interpret.
And sometimes there are even those which do have a story but happen to be of such a universal subject that they work best without the story too because viewers can so easily place their own experiences and stories into the context of that image.
But I think it's true that some images are given more emotional impact, more appeal, made more striking by the addition of their story.
:o)
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 04:27:51 PM · #7 |
A picture can create the scene, the characters and the illusion of being there, but without the words and title it can be meaningless.
Some pictures can convey the whole story without the need for words, but this is a rare event.
Most of us are just big kids and love a storybook with good pictures.
Steve |
|
|
|
03/19/2005 08:02:44 PM · #8 |
While I posed a question here, I think I've known the answer all along - mainly due to the fact that some images I've entered here at DPC have only become 'recognised' after the challenge has ended and people have read the details.
It's a situation that I enjoy more than if the visual story were crystal clear from minute one - although, like lenkphotos, I try to give a title that will hint at my photo's background so as not to leave people cold. I think lenkphotos sums it up perfectly.
Thanks for raising it K. I imagine there must be many other shots that show a similar balance of 'story telling' on this site. |
|
|
|
03/19/2005 08:48:42 PM · #9 |
I think nearly any picture that has people in it tells a story. The story the photographer has in mind may be very different than the one the viewer has in mind.
Here are a few selections from my favorites:
   
These are extremely well done photos, and one of the characteristics of an extremely well-done photo is that it causes the viewer (me at least) to be momentarily transported to a zone - who is this? What is behind the expression, or the posture? and to begin to fill in those details from my own imagination.
Photos without people can accomplish this too, but it's very different, in my view, and more difficult. Taking pics of people is a whole 'nother world, and one that I have not really entered yet. It's intimidating in a way, because of the power inherent in a good portrait or a good candid. They're not easy to do - that's why good ones affect us the way they do. |
|
|
|
03/19/2005 08:54:59 PM · #10 |
i think it all depends...
on the context in which it is presented, and how the presentation is intended. in many instances, the image says it all. in others, the title and a story are an extension of the image. sometimes, are absolutely necessary, sometimes they simply serve balance each other out.
i think the following comment from e301 brings to bear just how much a title can weigh on an image: "Though a lot of that comes from your title, I suppose: without which, it would be possible to see this as a depiction of terrror, those poses could be fear and flight as much as anything."
 |
|
|
|
03/19/2005 09:30:36 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
...Does this mean that photos can be more meaningful if a story is told... |
I suppose it can be.
Personally, I prefer photos which do not rely heavily on a textual context, particularly when the text is secondary, i.e. not a title or a metaphorical addition. Occasionally, the text provides information as a courtesy to the viewer/reader, a fact external to the image, but directly relevant to its subject (or vice-versa). Here is one such specimen:
Tom Wolfe has written an excellent and amusing speculation on this subject, by the way. It's called The Painted Word. I recommend reading it to anyone with an interest.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 09:35:57 PM · #12 |
It is best if comments are not displayed with images during voting.
It interferes with the evaluation of the image and people will conconct comments in feeble attempts to get a higher score, much like what is already done with image titles.
Every picture has a story the story behind an image you like can be very interesting, but is unrelated to a evaluating it's photographic quality.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2005 06:25:05 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
It is best if comments are not displayed with images during voting. |
On DPC I agree. This site is primarily about the photographic part of the craft and the challenges are about helping people hone in particular their skills at creating/ capturing the right image in the first place.
In other arenas I think emphasis should also be given to supporting title and/ or text, post processing, presentation and anything else that impacts on the way the overall package may be perceived by the viewer.
I do feel, as I said, that some images are stronger standing alone and others work best as part of an overall package.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2005 06:48:59 AM · #14 |
That which I struggle to put into words, I put into images.
-- me
Coincidentally this is the quote that I added to my profile a few days ago. Personally I find it very difficult to add a meaningful description to an image. The idea may be there, but converting that into words is the hard bit.
Maybe because of this I'm also a "just look at the pictures" kind of person. I like an image that gives me somewhere for my imagination to go walkabouts without needing too many words to direct me.
Different strokes, as always.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2005 07:11:21 AM · #15 |
i called this "dancin on the jetty" because of the INXS song. it reminds me of the shot in the skiprow post. |
|
|
|
03/20/2005 08:50:14 AM · #16 |
I often really enjoy photos that do imply a story of some kind like those posted above. It either introduced a story, finishes a story, or is somewhere in the middle of a story, and we can kind of fill in the story as we probe the photo.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2005 08:52:48 AM · #17 |
I think it is very important for the individual photogrpaher to be able to caption their own photos for the sake of documenting history. When we are gone and others are viewing are work then they might not know anything about it... As for how much of a story that is told with the photo that is up to the photographer.. If your work is in a gallery I don;t think the space is there for a full essay about the piece of work but yet when you enter in some contest, schalarship/grant things, magazines, (you know for publishing) they require a specific amount of details with the photo.
I like to read about the photo specially if its a view or opinion. It gives me the chance to learn what others are doing all over the world and about the diverse in cultures.. One sentence, paragraph, short essay, its all just a little information that I would be guessing about.. Its defanetly a big help understanding... 
|
|
|
|
03/20/2005 11:50:20 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
{snip}
Does this mean that photos can be more meaningful if a story is told prior to seeing it?
{snip} |
It is deeply embeded in our DNA to relate to stories, and I mean that literally. Prehistoric tribes passed on the wisdom of the tribe through stories. Mythology is a collection of stories about how the world was thought to work. Even the Bible is a collection of stories.
I believe the best pictures all have a story or tell a story. Pictures that have no story feel flat. Knowing the story enriches the picture. Not knowing or not inferring the story diminishes the picture.
By way of example, I once spent a day in the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam reading a collection of letters between Vincent and his brother Theo. The story that unfolded; of artist and patron; of two brothers' relationship; of a battle with and for sanity; enriched the art of Van Gogh immeasurably for me.
So to answer the original question -- Yes!
But let us not feel compelled to tell a long story in the title. (Inside every long title, is a great short story struggling to get out.) Better yet, make the picture so well it tells the whole story, if you can. |
|
|
|
03/20/2005 01:53:10 PM · #19 |
|
|
|
03/20/2005 02:54:47 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
... Imagineer contacted me and said: Thanks for your thoughtful comment on 'Boy to Man'. Interesting about the last point too. Does this mean that photos can be more meaningful if a story is told prior to seeing it? ... |
Ever look thru someone elses family snapshots? ... one that is full of people and placed you are not familiar with?
Before long a sense of being disconnected from the reality of the experiences they portray tends to take over.
A title, even if just the names of those protrayed, or a short description of the experience is all that is needed to gain the feeling of connectedness to people and places that have not been directly experienced.
Some descriptions would have to be quite long to convey the complete experience portrayed to the viewer. A well chosen book cover often does this well. It is interesting with just the title of the book, but means so much more once the book has been read.
Yes a title or discription (short of long as desired) are able to enhance the image by giving the view a way to connect with it -- to experience it for themselves. It is after all, the experiences of life -- real or imagined -- that make a life worthwhile.
However, as with the book cover, too often when it is discovered the image can be enhanced with words, the words take over. The same thing happens with PhotoShop or any other tool of the trade. When used with moderation the image is able to be as good as it is -- when overused, the image becomes secondary and the connectedness of the viewing becomes a bit forced.
Here on DPC I would have no problem with the addition of the artists comments to the voting -- but I feel this text, as well as the title, should be covered by the 'no adding or removing elements' clause of the rules. Although that is perhaps too much of a burden to place on the Site Council.
David
|
|
|
|
03/20/2005 04:37:04 PM · #21 |
This is Terry. He is engaged in a pass-time known as 'scratching', which is the searching of London's river shore-lines for - well, stuff. Without technological aids, that is: the real scratchers tend to look down their noses at the techno-geeks with their metal detectors; and anyway, they'd never find the fragments of Elizabethan clay pipes that Terry's holding in this image. The pipes date back as far as the introduction of tobacco to England, and were almost mass-produced, and generally given away with a firkin of ale in the taverms and inns that lined the river before the embankment - fragile and long-stemmed because of the heat of the tobacco they easily broke, and were usually just swept in to the river at the end of the night.
Terry has been scratching for 16 years, since a leg injury forced him to retire from the building business he started when he left the parachute regiment. He has no independent pension provision, nor insurance payments, and this lives on the basic state pension of not much, and what his family gives him. He has, he thinks, around 1500 of these pipes, around 100 of which are complete with their stems. Someone he knows recently saw five of them (broken) advertised on ebay, and the five sold for $60. Terry however, has promised his collection to his grandchildren.
I have no idea what is going on here.
e
Message edited by author 2005-03-20 16:37:53. |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 02:20:05 AM · #22 |
I absolutely HATE to see a photo and go, "WOW, What's this photo's story?" and look down to see NA... ugh that makes me so upset! I feel all images have somewhat of a story or at least a brief description. I also feel if you don't tell the story of your image, it isn't important to you at all, and you shouldn't be in an artistic field like photography.
and in reply to a previous post, I don't see any "comments" during voting, only a title. A title is an artists right, you name your children as soon as they are born, its the same thing :)
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 06:57:11 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by aerogurl:
I also feel if you don't tell the story of your image, it isn't important to you at all, and you shouldn't be in an artistic field like photography. |
i guess i should put my camera away... |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 05:35:32 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by aerogurl:
I also feel if you don't tell the story of your image, it isn't important to you at all, and you shouldn't be in an artistic field like photography. |
I can't agree to this wholly as I do think there are some images that are more about the visual/ aesthetic appeal than the emotional or communicative appeal. And there are some that are so universal in their story/ theme that they can communicate the story or emotion without any text at all.
Artistic fields allow for all types of art and all types of expression so I can't say I expect or want only those kinds of images that fall into the type we're talking about...
(Skip, keep using the camera).
That said I also agree that there are many images here on DPC where I do feel they would benefit strongly from some text within the comments field and also feel disappointed to see nothing there. Just it's not for all or even most of them...
I really like the point about how humans have story-telling ingrained within them, this I definitely agree with. It's something that transcends culture.
All very interesting, thanks everyone for chipping in...
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 05:44:12 PM · #25 |
Mnay of the images that really stay with me have no explanation - that is absolutely part of the glory (and incidentally, my post above was entirely to make this point). Marc Riboud's shots from Leeds in 1968 - usually entitled 'Leeds 1968'. This enormously famous shot of his, also. Ever heard that one fully explained?
E |
|
