UKC

Now; time for an admission prompted by a recent comment of a picture of mine on flickr. “Really tells a story” was the comment and the picture (link below if you’re curious, but this is more about the general principal rather than a trawl for views).

But can a picture be made to tell a story and, if so, does that make it better or worse or does the whole thing depend on the mind of the viewer?

Of course, some pictures *do* tell a story: a car crashed into a river, nothing above the water, a police diver preparing to go in and others of that ilk tell a story but that’s not what I’m on about. What I mean is if you’re taking a picture - a landscape, say - can you make it tell a story when there’s no story there to be told? Do you need to add things to it that may - a handy friend or two, or maybe a rucksack - be in your control or if not, can you mess with angle, perspective and the like to make a difference? Does it all depend on where you are when and just how creative you can be?

Which brings me back to my own currently sceptical point of view, which also requires me to admit my ignorance and my willingness to be educated and learn. See, at the moment I’m very much of the mind that what you see is what you get, that if some people can see a story then that’s terrific but don’t expect me to pore over things trying to make one or read one; but I’m also aware that this point of view is based on ignorance of what one could do, perhaps should do and whether I really should embrace this and try harder and if so, whether that will make me a better photographer or just a better educated one that holds the same (ahem) view.

So, thoughts, comments and the like welcome. If all this seems like so much ignorant hogwash well, I don’t always talk sense. Ta for reading anyway.

T.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/8411024@N08/23913797733/

In reply to Pursued by a bear:
This is an interesting thought thanks for posing the question. I do think that many pictures 'make a statement' but it takes several to link statements together to tell a story.
But then again if you can find that one defining image can it distill several statements into a single narrative.
May I suggest that this image does indeed do that - What do you think?
https://lis471.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/8b29516v5.jpg?w=240&h=300

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

My inexpert opinion.

A picture can be used to illustrate or enhance a story - in that instance the story must be told.

A picture can also be used to understand/allow the mind of the viewer to come forward and almost interact with it - a very difficult thing to achieve primarily because you have to put your preconceptions on hold.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

A single picture can and should (ideally) tell a story. Whether the story is true, or imagined by the viewer, is irrelevant. It's that connection the draws the viewer in. If the connection isn't there, it's just a snapshot.

That's my take on it anyway...

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:



I don't think that tells a story on its own. If you know the narrative behind that photo, it makes sense, but there are many stories which could go with that photo, from the mundane to the heart-stopping.

Which is what I started thinking as I was reading the OP - there can be many stories for every photo, some real, some imagined, some blending fact and fiction, and all being developed by the viewer. Everyone brings their own experiences to a photo and draw from those experiences to read their own story. For photos like that cited in the OP, it's likely that UKC/UKH viewers are going to bring a broadly similar set of experiences, and hence develop a broadly similar story. But for someone who has no relevant experience, or even a positive dislike of anything remotely rural, the story will be quite different. That's not a bad thing, but I think it's a mistake to try to think that a photo tells the same story to everyone who looks at it.

In reply to deepsoup:

What are you saying?

In reply to ScottTalbot:
That pic immediately sprang to mind when I saw the thread title. Love it.
With its title "Goodbye 2012" it pretty much tells you everything you need to know about that summer. :O)

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

That's a very good image Keith, thanks for sharing.

I'm not sure what the narrative is behind that shot, but it does make me wonder just what has been/is going on. Does it tell a story? For me no, it doesn't; but it does make me wonder just what the story behind it might be. Maybe that's as much as a single image, standing alone, can do and the rest really is in the mind or imagination of the viewer.

Mmm. Much pondering will follow.

T.

In reply to Eeyore:


Heavens, I'm no authority. All opinions welcome, and thanks for yours!


That's fair enough. A relevant picture can illustrate and enhance the written, or spoken, word and a creative photographer can make something better than perhaps the author might envisage. For example, twenty years ago I edited a work magazine aimed at an external audience. I aimed to have no more than three illustrations per article, one of which I wanted to give context and the other two might be more technical. One of the articles was on atmospheric chemistry and the brief to the phoitographer was to go and get me a picture of the sky (I was a little more specific but not much). He returned with an image of a field of rapeseed beneath a very blue sky in which a balloon floated. It was perfect, better than I could ever have hoped for. Under the title of the article it gave immediate context, words and picture working together to tell a story in a moment. But the picture wouldn't have said anything withut the article, which in turn would have been much poorer without the illustration.


Which is what I was on about, really. Can a picture lead the imagination down a certain track in a specific way; not so much a 'come hither' thing but more a 'go yonder'. Still musing over that.

T.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

Very interesting question. I really liked Scott's answer too.

I think in most contexts the word 'story' is something verbal or can be written. It also exists in time, that is it has a beginning and and end. So a single still image is such a different kind of media its bound to be very different.

Stories usually contain characters so in a pure landscape shot there is no one, though of course the photographer is implied. In this kind of example I think the word 'story' is going to be very different to the linear, verbal kind of story. It would probably something like the answer to the question: why did the photographer take this photo? What is it about the shot that drew him/her there? Maybe it captures a mood or feeling or something particularly beautiful or interesting. If the viewer can see what the photographer intended maybe that is the 'story'? And the clearer it comes across the better the photograph perhaps.

I think videos should definitely tell a story and sometimes get frustrated with various climbing vids that seem to have no story, no context, no rhyme or reason to what is going on. Most professional videos aren't like this though and the story, whatever it is, comes across clearly.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:


I think a picture can be a 'go yonder' picture but it takes a special skill to create one.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

Not really. I know where exactly that picture was taken and have one recently from there, but certainly not as pretty. But there isn't any story attached to either.