Telling a story.

[J40ADF]

Does every picture need to tell a story?
I've read a few threads recently where the author has been questioned and criticised for not telling a story.

Well, I don't think, unless you are actually trying to tell a story, that any picture needs to have a story behind it, regardless of subject.
Can a picture not be appreciated for it's composition, exposure, artistic merits.

What do you think?

 

[jonbeeza]

Wonder how the story telling bit would apply to a photo, say of a person who the photographer took. The photo may be only a snapshot, and may hold sentimental value to the photo taker of the person in the photo. I have a photo or two taken many years ago, they have very poor technical quality and probably no story telling to any other viewer apart from myself, but the photos give me a lovely feeling when I view them. So maybe no story telling in my photos, just captured a lovely moment in time, and I can have a little hint of that feeling again, every time I look at those old photos...

 

[joxby]

Does every picture need to tell a story?
I've read a few threads recently where the author has been questioned and criticised for not telling a story.

Well, I don't think, unless you are actually trying to tell a story, that any picture needs to have a story behind it, regardless of subject.
Can a picture not be appreciated for it's composition, exposure, artistic merits.

What do you think?

Its not enough for me, it has to provoke a response, perfectly composed well exposed pictures with artistic merit are everywhere, what are you going to do to make yours stand out.
Nothing wrong with technically proficient pictures if that's the limit of your ambition, you'll never be short of technically proficient critique, but when you've mastered that, what then, is there always a more technically proficient picture to shoot.

 

[pjm1]

I'll be honest, if a picture is just a snapshot and doesn't convey anything more than an image in front of my eyes, it's not going to make me want to look at it again.

Stories don't have to be deep and they don't have to be personal or involve people. A landscape can tell a story - a fierce sea, a crumbling building, a pristine office block amid unkempt streets... they're all telling stories that the viewer can make up for themselves. Which is part of the fun - for me at least.

 

[woof woof]

People take each picture for a reason so I suppose that reason is a little story even if it might not matter to anyone but the picture taker.

I suppose knowing the story could change the emotional response or create one where initially there wasn't.

 

[J40ADF]

Its not enough for me, it has to provoke a response, perfectly composed well exposed pictures with artistic merit are everywhere, what are you going to do to make yours stand out.
Nothing wrong with technically proficient pictures if that's the limit of your ambition, you'll never be short of technically proficient critique, but when you've mastered that, what then, is there always a more technically proficient picture to shoot.

Now i totally get what your saying if we are talking about wedding photography, portraiture and to some extent a landscape.
What sort of response would you expect from a picture of a plant, some of the more abstract pictures?
Should I be looking for some kind of emotional response before I press the shutter release on every picture.

I was at the coast on Sunday and two pictures I shot stood out as two examples;
A dog sitting alone on a sunbed - I thought it was comical, may not be technically good but my emotional response suggests there is a story there.
Abstract of patterns in the sand - I've no emotional response other than it looked pretty, no story to tell.

Or is the story the protected rights of the photographer and only become public if they decide to publish some kind of narrative to go with their images.

Or is it up to the viewer to see a story in an image?

I don't know, I think that there are some awesome images that to me, don't tell a story. Is that me being shallow?

 

[pjm1]

Now i totally get what your saying if we are talking about wedding photography, portraiture and to some extent a landscape.
What sort of response would you expect from a picture of a plant, some of the more abstract pictures?
Should I be looking for some kind of emotional response before I press the shutter release on every picture.

I was at the coast on Sunday and two pictures I shot stood out as two examples;
A dog sitting alone on a sunbed - I thought it was comical, may not be technically good but my emotional response suggests there is a story there.
Abstract of patterns in the sand - I've no emotional response other than it looked pretty, no story to tell.

Or is the story the protected rights of the photographer and only become public if they decide to publish some kind of narrative to go with their images.

Or is it up to the viewer to see a story in an image?

I don't know, I think that there are some awesome images that to me, don't tell a story. Is that me being shallow?

Not at all - in answer to your last question. "Pretty picture" is something which keeps us coming back, shooting more and enjoying looking at images. Sometimes you just don't want a Michelin starred meal - it's an icecream or chicken nuggets you're craving. It doesn't mean they're less worthy, it's about balance.

I think funny/clever images are brilliant - sometimes deep ones can be a bit much. But there are only so many "pretty pictures" of the same photogenic scene we can look at before our eyes gloss over at yet another Buachaille Etive Mor shot. Doesn't stop me wanting to get a great one myself, but it's not as impactful as other images.

 

[J40ADF]

Who is the story important to, who is the intended recipient of the story?
Is it the photographer and what the image means to them? or the viewer and what they want to take from the image.

I will give you another example;
My recent sunflower and bluebell pictures don't portray a story other than to me and the story is how I came across each scene. It's a personal story and had I not have provided a narrative when I posted them for critique no one would have been any the wiser. They are just reasonably attractive and well composed photographs (maybe lacking in some technical expertise)
Had I nailed (technically) these images they would have been great but, in my opinion don't portray any story other than how I came across the scenes. In these cases is it up to the viewer to read a story into them?
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/bluebell-wood-on-the-way-to-work.623613/
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/another-discovery-on-the-way-to-work.623660/

I do get how some images are far better if there is a story behind them and it makes those images better for it but I don't see why some images can't be stunning without any underlying story.

Or, is this what's lacking in my photography?

 

[twhite87]

Surely a photograph of any flower on it's own (i.e against a black backdrop) doesn't tell a story but is none-the-less a great image! Most product photographs don't really tell a story other than showing the product itself. So I would say no, a photograph doesn't HAVE to tell a story, however for certain types of images (like wedding photographs - as a set) would benefit from being able to tell a story.

I have an image of a bouquet of flowers that as a single image means diddley squat. But put together with the rest of the set shows the wedding as a whole and thus tells a story!

 

[J40ADF]

Surely a photograph of any flower on it's own (i.e against a black backdrop) doesn't tell a story but is none-the-less a great image!

I agree but now I'm beginning to wonder if that image would be better with a Bee on the flower therefore telling a story but if there are no Bees around what do I do? Dismiss the image because there is no story?

 

[twhite87]

Take this for example, courtesy of Steve Bloxham

https://www.flickr.com/photos/76339...6Ht-jP6mmu-dEGquY-dUp4nS-9XZ1Rr-ex2Nmn-qxba51

A fantastic image of a lily from different views. Doesn't tell a story and in my opinion, doesn't need to.

I think it all boils down to what you want to achieve. If you are a photojournalist or documentary photographer then yes, your images need to be able to tell a story, but a still life photographer can simply take photographs of objects and not have to tell a story.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

Does every picture need to tell a story? Hell no, unless of course the intent of the photographer is for the picture to tell a story. Some pictures are just a picture of a nice scene, others are for record purposes only.

Sometimes the viewer of a picture can overlay or create their own story on a photograph that has no storytelling intent. Other times, a series of pictures may combine to tell a story, but the individual images may not say anything on their own. Alternatively, a photo or series of photos may require titles or an introduction to provide the context for the story as it may not be obvious from simple observation.

 

[joxby]

I misinterpreted the thread, I was reading between the lines and thought the question "does every picture have to tell a story" was a catchall, a round about way of asking, does a picture have to contain more than "pretty" and "technically competent".

 

[sirch]

Take this for example, courtesy of Steve Bloxham

https://www.flickr.com/photos/76339...6Ht-jP6mmu-dEGquY-dUp4nS-9XZ1Rr-ex2Nmn-qxba51

A fantastic image of a lily from different views. Doesn't tell a story and in my opinion, doesn't need to.

Seems to me to be telling the "story" of a lilly flower unfolding. Would any one of the 3 images in that composite be as powerful as the 3 together?

I don't think anyone is expecting War and Peace from a photo, personally I like images that leave me asking questions and I suppose that then leads on to thinking of "stories" to answer those questions, a lone dog on a sun lounger causes me to ask why? who left the dog? are they coming back?

 

[BillP]

Does every picture need to tell a story?
I've read a few threads recently where the author has been questioned and criticised for not telling a story. ... Can a picture not be appreciated for it's composition, exposure, artistic merits. ....

What a great topic as something I've been pondering lately. IMO, it is the bias of the person (either observer or recorder) that determines what a picture should be for them. So basically there is no rule in what a photo should or should not be as the intent of the photo captured by the photographer is what dictates what it is. So if the photographer is doing the capture just to record a personal moment for them to look back on then that is all it has to be. Or if the capture is just to document something that happened, like this huge bird landed in my yard, then that is what the photo is supposed to be. Or if the photographer is trying to create "art" with their image then then the artistic merits are what it is. Or if the purpose is to communicate something to others then the story aspect can become important. Etc., etc.

Personally, when I see the many photos posted on different sites, it gets a little boring for me as everyone is trying to make this image "art", but at the same time they are trying to make it a more and more perfect level following standard rules of composition, lighting, etc. So in effect all photos begin to look the same because they are all trying to better follow the "standard" rules. So in a way, photos and photography seems to be painting itself into a corner. Instead of breaking boundaries, it more seems to be reinforcing boundaries. So the more a photo may deviate from what is considered good composition, good lighting, good everything else, then more it becomes individualistic and alive IMO. "Beautiful" images are literally a dime a dozen...easy to find and see and nothing special. To me, a photo becomes special when it is unique, individualistic, and most importantly when it makes a real personal connection to the observer (me).