It depends of the photography kind. If it's a photojournalism or something similar the image should ilustrate the written story, if it's art and most other kind of photography it's best if the image has a story contained within it, the image to tell that story. They say a good image worth 1 thousand words. The diference between the 2 is that if you explain it with writen words, probably more people will understand, and if you master the text well it can be a verry sucsesful thing, but if you let the image take the story it is alot harder, many people won't recive the message but it is a hell of alot more powerful for the verry few who get it. And your satisfaction as a photographer, is alot bigger when some commenter understands exactly what you intended and connects to it just the way you did when you took it. It happened to me a few times and it whas mine biggest satisfaction ever.
Interesting I braught a somewhat similar thread today and I learned that people can also connect to images that has no story nor writen nor contained within, it's just eycandy so they said. There are many kinds of photography and I think many levels of storys and also many different way of telling that story. and also different people will understand your story each in his own way. eventualy a few will see it as you did and that's all it matters.
Also sometimes you can ruin an image with too much explaining, one of the most important factor in some images and theyr main strength is the mistery within it, explaining it would trivialize the whole thing, making it less interesting.
Message edited by author 2005-03-21 18:49:50. |
