Telling a story through photos

[Merlin5]

There is a small but interesting book by Joel based on the course he does (which includes a couple of paragraphs about the photograph you posted):

The book

Joel Meyerowitz

The 'Masters of Photography' series is a new approach to photography how-to. Each volume is dedicated to the work of one key photographer who, through a series of bite-sized lessons and ideas, tells you everything you always wanted to know about their approach to taking photographs. From their...

www.laurenceking.com

The course

Online class — Joel Meyerowitz

www.joelmeyerowitz.com

As an aside, strictly speaking, for copyright reasons, I don't think you should have posted his photograph here without his permission ( I am assuming you didn't get it) there are some exceptions to this e.g. for educational use. etc which this fall under, but at the very least you should provide a URL to the source of the image. Obviously it was credited in your text

Exceptions to copyright

Details of the exceptions to copyright that allow limited use of copyright works without the permission of the copyright owner.

www.gov.uk

No doubt someone will come along with a more definitive comment on this, but thought it was worth mentioning.

This was the article I saved the image from.

Joel Meyerowitz’s Career Is a Minihistory of Photography (Published 2018)

Five photographs reveal the evolution of a master street photographer.

www.nytimes.com

I agree with everything you say. However, to that I would also add, did Joel Meyerowitz get permission to print the faces of all the people he took photos of in the street without them knowing.

 

[myotis]

I agree with everything you say. However, to that I would also add, did Joel Meyerowitz get permission to print the faces of all the people he took photos of in the street without them knowing.

I would be surprised if he got permission.

There is no legal requirement to get permission from people you photograph in the street (public place) to print or publish photographs of them.

There are some limited legal restrictions in how you can use those photographs without permission, but the default is that there is no need to get permission.

This contrasts with the default position that all photographs, unless otherwise stated or by other agreement are automatically the copyright of the photographer or creator and are legally protected against use without their permission. Albeit with the exceptions given in the guidance I linked to.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

There is no legal requirement to get permission from people you photograph in the street (public place) to print or publish photographs of them.

That's not exactly right. Under the wrong circumstances, a charge of harrassment or assault might be possible but that would depend entirely on circumstances and the statements of any witnesses.

Other countries, other rules. In France, for example, it's entirely legal to take pictures of strangers in the street (subject to rules similar to Britain) but it's definitely not all right to sell them and there are serious restrictions on publishing them. (see the French Civil Code Article 9 and relevant court cases). In Germany, also, there's Paragraph 22 of the Kunsturhebergesetz which forbids the publishing of pictures without the consent of the shown people, unless you can satisfy the requirements of section 23, which makes an exception for public events, performers on a stage or people who are entirely incidental to the picture.

Meanwhile, over the border in Austria, this sort of picture is entirely OK, both to take and to publish...

 

[myotis]

That's not exactly right. Under the wrong circumstances, a charge of harrassment or assault might be possible but that would depend entirely on circumstances and the statements of any witnesses.

Yes, I should have said it varies with country, but can you explain a bit more on when publishing a person's photograph could result in a prosecution for harassment or assault? I can understand it could occur when "taking" a photograph, but not when publishing.

 

[Merlin5]

To be honest. The more pictures you take, and the more you practise, the luckier you'll find yourself getting.

I got kind of close to one of those fortunate moments with this image of mine. I call it Follicles due to the obvious amount of hair, plus the coincidental roots sign in the background.


Follicles by Merlin 5, on Flickr

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I can understand it could occur when "taking" a photograph, but not when publishing.

My fault for expressing myself badly. I should have made it clear that I meant what you've just written.

 

[superpippo]

I got kind of close to one of those fortunate moments with this image of mine. I call it Follicles due to the obvious amount of hair, plus the coincidental roots sign in the background.


Follicles by Merlin 5, on Flickr

Did you give him his quid?

 

[Merlin5]

Did you give him his quid?

Gave him £2 as I took that before he spotted me and then I got a second one posed.


Camden Lock punks 3 by Merlin 5, on Flickr

 

[Lensflare]

Tell that to a newspaper editor. Any informative picture needs words to provide the viewer with a a context.

Having worked as a full time press and magazine photographer for nearly 40 years...... a caption is not an explanation.

 

[Lensflare]

This was the article I saved the image from.

Joel Meyerowitz’s Career Is a Minihistory of Photography (Published 2018)

Five photographs reveal the evolution of a master street photographer.

www.nytimes.com

I agree with everything you say. However, to that I would also add, did Joel Meyerowitz get permission to print the faces of all the people he took photos of in the street without them knowing.

He had no need to, there is no law against photographing people in public places, despite what some people (including some Police Officers) will try to tell you - and you do not need his permission to reproduce his photograph here, because you were using it to illustrate his work.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I'm still reading this thread guys. Thanks for all the replies, fascinating stuff.



I had to look up Nigel Danson after you mentioned him and then realised I've seen a small handful of his videos. I quite like what he does. I think I first learned of the phrase hyperfocal distance from him.

But no, it wasn't from him, I've seen mention of photos needing to tell a story or at least have a meaning, by members of various forums, so figured it must be something I must include or else the photo would be pointless. But from this thread, I've learnt it's not compulsory.

That said, my recent little flirtation with street photography has shown me it's very interesting to capture an image that can make the viewer think about the subject or go "ooh that's pretty cool", like maybe a juxtaposition of two elements or some small sort of commentary.

The photo below by Joel Meyerowitz I really like. I've only just learnt about him and I'm sure the experienced members here are probably quite familiar with some of his work.

I don't think it tells a story or even has meaning, but it's a fascinating and clever image that has inspired me to try and capture similar. But I think it'll be quite difficult and a lot of luck involved. Very fortunate timing and coincidence of multiple and simultaneous instances of duplicate elements. Well, I'll go back on what I said, because the duplicate elements are what makes the photo appealing and so I suppose that is the meaning or reason for the image.

View attachment 299008

And this picture goes to show how we're all different - if I taken that then it would gone in the bin as a 'good idea that didn't work'.

 

[Merlin5]

And this picture goes to show how we're all different - if I taken that then it would gone in the bin as a 'good idea that didn't work'.

That's interesting, Toni. And totally understandable that it doesn't appeal. Out of curiosity though, if you see it as a good idea, what is it about his photo in your eyes that doesn't work?

 

[ancient_mariner]

That's interesting, Toni. And totally understandable that it doesn't appeal. Out of curiosity though, if you see it as a good idea, what is it about his photo in your eyes that doesn't work?

As presented here, it's a complete visual mess - there's no focal point, all key faces are hidden so that breaks a personal connection, the building is wonky in a way that just looks careless* rather than shot in action.

The stuff I like - the 3 sets of pairs of people that should be echoing each other - are detractive rather than additive, and my eye is drawn from the couple who *should* be the focal point, to the much more interesting pair of women with shadows on their backs and also to the passers by going the other way whose faces we CAN see and who make contact for me. It's just an opportunistic and haphazard tram-smash.

If it was mine it would never see light of day - even knowing it's a famous image - says much about the size of his cojonnes to use it as a key image and to persuade other people to run with it as such. FWIW I know that I'm graphically driven, and prefer an image to be based around shapes and patterns, even where people are concerned.

*granted this is 1975, so no handy photoshop to straighten things, but I bet it wasn't printed at boots on an automated machine.

 

[Ed Sutton]

FWIW I know that I'm graphically driven, and prefer an image to be based around shapes and patterns, even where people are concerned.

I used to be very much hung up on the formal aspects of photographs, I suspect a good manywho saw Cartier-Bresson as the epitome of good photography have been hamstrung by that. I know I was until I realised there's more to a photograph than the way it's constructed. It took me a while to understand how 'messy' pictures can be good pictures.

The Meyerowitz works for me because of the idea of echoing, the repetition of colour of the coats, the steam, the overall colour palette and (shock horror!) the light. It's a bit more than a one-liner.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Having worked as a full time press and magazine photographer for nearly 40 years...... a caption is not an explanation.

...and writing as a one time editor, albeit on two local weeklies; without an adequate caption to put an image in context, there's no way in which I'd use the picture. What's more, I sold many pictures in those days and always found that the fuller the caption the more sales a picture would rack up. I did stick largely to the local and regional market, so our experience might differ in that context.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I used to be very much hung up on the formal aspects of photographs, I suspect a good manywho saw Cartier-Bresson as the epitome of good photography have been hamstrung by that. I know I was until I realised there's more to a photograph than the way it's constructed. It took me a while to understand how 'messy' pictures can be good pictures.

The Meyerowitz works for me because of the idea of echoing, the repetition of colour of the coats, the steam, the overall colour palette and (shock horror!) the light. It's a bit more than a one-liner.

I did hedge my comment with "as presented here", and I suspect that the digitisation and then small size of reproduction has not been beneficial. After making my comments I did go track down the image in a larger size and found it less unimpressive. Images definitely do have to be designed and processed around a certain size of presentation, and many that look good big will fail badly when small, while an image that's strong small will often fall apart when large.

 

[drsilver]

...and writing as a one time editor, albeit on two local weeklies; without an adequate caption to put an image in context, there's no way in which I'd use the picture. What's more, I sold many pictures in those days and always found that the fuller the caption the more sales a picture would rack up. I did stick largely to the local and regional market, so our experience might differ in that context.

I'm with Andrew on this one.

I did 10 years as a newspaper photographer. I considered myself more of an illustrator than an artist. My contribution was to the package of words and pictures. Every picture had a cutline. Names of the people at least or a description of what's happening. And if you give it a little thought, a well crafted caption adds to the package.

Worst cutline ever. You'll have to imagine the picture. Kinda moody. Kinda arty. "A man, framed in a porthole, looks to his left." I felt bad for that photographer.


Road to Market

I joined Flickr recently. They display the titles you give your pictures. I use that space.

It's a long, lonely road - making a living. That's my story for this picture. But if you have a different story, you're welcome to it. The whole stock photography industry is that. Images anybody can put any story to.

I'm not sure what to think about that. Is it art? There's a lot of garbage stock photography. But quality percolates to the top, I think, mostly. Either way, the photographer loses control of the story. Can it be art if that doesn't bother you?

 

[sirch]

I'm not sure what to think about that. Is it art?

It seems to me that people tend to overthink this "is it art" thing. It's art if it was created as art by an artist. It doesn't have to be "art" to be moving, beautiful, decorative, emotive and can still be appreciated, admired, enjoyed, hung on a wall even if not "art".

 

[myotis]

It seems to me that people tend to overthink this "is it art" thing. It's art if it was created as art by an artist. It doesn't have to be "art" to be moving, beautiful, decorative, emotive and can still be appreciated, admired, enjoyed, hung on a wall even if not "art".

Yes, I have now concluded that only the artist can truly decide if something is art. For only they can fully know its intent and emotional commitment. Others can judge whether they like, dislike or are indifferent to it, and decide if it's "good" art (as can the artist) but none of this defines something as "being" art.

 

[sirch]

Yes, I have now concluded that only the artist can truly decide if something is art. For only they can fully know its intent and emotional commitment. Others can judge whether they like, dislike or are indifferent to it, and decide if it's "good" art (as can the artist) but none of this defines something as "being" art.

Absolutely.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I have now concluded that only the artist can truly decide if something is art.

Before I can agree with that I think we need a better definition of the word. "Art" derives from the Latin "ars" which was translated as "craft or "skill" until the late medieval period. The modern usage suggests something mystical rather than real.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Before I can agree with that I think we need a better definition of the word. "Art" derives from the Latin "ars" which was translated as "craft or "skill" until the late medieval period. The modern usage suggests something mystical rather than real.

Art is whatever an artist says it is.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Art is whatever an artist says it is.

Naw. The artist proposes but the buyer disposes...

 

[myotis]

Before I can agree with that I think we need a better definition of the word. "Art" derives from the Latin "ars" which was translated as "craft or "skill" until the late medieval period. The modern usage suggests something mystical rather than real.

I am going with the more modern usage of associating art with works that go beyond craft and into something more emotional and individually expressive. Even I don't pre-date the late medieval period.

Learning a craft gives an artist the tools they need to make their art. With the boundary between craft and art rather fuzzy.

 

[Lensflare]

...and writing as a one time editor, albeit on two local weeklies; without an adequate caption to put an image in context, there's no way in which I'd use the picture. What's more, I sold many pictures in those days and always found that the fuller the caption the more sales a picture would rack up. I did stick largely to the local and regional market, so our experience might differ in that context.

Probably. Do you remember the 'Grand National that never was?' The pictures of Richard Dunwoody going off with the starting line tape around him? The lead up to that picture was never published, in fact it was buried. The horses, 3 or 4 of them, were leaning on the starter's tape with their heads over it and pressing against it. There was no way that tape was going up. I was shooting E6 but was the only photographer on the start line... I went into the press centre and asked if anyone had had a photographer on the start line.... the Mail took my film, couriered it to HQ and developed it then syndicated it. I never saw a processed image until they hit the world's newspapers pages. I have Paul Silvers to thank for that. He may have captioned it, but it was not an explanation. One of my biggest sales days!

 

[sirch]

I was walking in some local woods yesterday and I saw a gnarled, stunted tree and it got me thinking about this thread and storytelling in photos. My feeling was that the tree, or a photo of the tree wouldn't tell a story per se, what it would do is conjure up some well known meme in the mind of the viewer and it struck me that for many genres of photography that is the real point of the "story telling" concept, it's not to tell a new story but to illustrate a story. I guess it's also why some photos are less successful than others in this regard, if I try to illustrate a story that you do not know then you won't "get" the photo. Also some narratives develop and change over time but some, the twisted old tree struggling on despite all that has been thrown at it, seem to be fairly perennial.

 

[lemo]

if I try to illustrate a story that you do not know then you won't "get" the photo.

So better not take photos that are only good when the viewer has a story behind them.

 

[drsilver]

I was driving in the mountains today and a thought popped through my mind, damn, day-old plowed snow is ugly. I should try to make a picture that tells that story.

Here's what I got with where I was and what I had to work with. I may try this again if we get some snow closer to home.

 

[ancient_mariner]

damn, day-old plowed snow is ugly. I should try to make a picture that tells that story.

Well, you certainly told THAT story!

TBH I don't find these interesting as photographs, and the story alone isn't enough for me.

 

[sirch]

It's certainly a tough subject, some things just don't suit certain mediums. Someone once pointed out that in a novel it's easy to indicate the passage of time, "he returned a year later" etc. but in a film based on that novel its a lot harder, cutting to shots of newspapers or calendars is just a bit naff.

I know these are based on what was available but may be something like the blade of a snow plough cutting into fresh snow is more allegorical? I guess you also have to be quite lucky to tell an engaging story with a couple of shots on the spur of the moment

 

[lemo]

Is there a story, or is there none?

 

[sirch]

Is there a story, or is there none?

I guess it's more for you to convince us that there is a story. For me there is no immediate allegory or metaphor beyond the very obvious and so that doesn't really engage me to think more about the image. As part of a set of images it would be more obvious where you were going with this.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Almost any photograph can make the viewer *imagine* a story, if they have reason to. You just need to supply one.

 

[imattersuk]

Almost a year gone since I took this set 4 days before we went into the first lockdown, the people of London had already taken the decision themselves before it was made official.

View: https://youtu.be/IDbtZrfWNl4

 

[Andrew Smith]

Here are some pictures telling a story.....

 

[lemo]

You just need to supply one.

Yes, that's right. Either the photographer must deliver a story or it must already be in the viewer's head. A photo alone never tells a story.

 

[lemo]

Here are some pictures telling a story.....

A red and a white car make several attempts to park in a space-saving manner.

And a pile of rubbish balls up next to the road.

 

[DemiLion]

A photo alone never tells a story.

Sorry, but that is utter rubbish.

 

[lemo]

Sorry, but that is utter rubbish.

You have to read and understand what I wrote before that sentence.
But perhaps my approach is too philosophical.

But anyway, a good photo doesn't have to tell a story.

 

[DemiLion]

But anyway, a good photo doesn't have to tell a story.

You're right, it doesn't have to, but it can.