I don't buy into this view. What it takes is a sensitive photographer's eye. Spending days, weeks, or months in a place is not necessary. Additionally, while a series of photographs may tell a more complete story, a single image is enough to give a sense of place, IMO.
As I mentioned above, with a 40-year career in planning and architecture, "sense of place" means one thing and I know what it means but few people outside of this field of study will relate to that definition, although, once it is a built project, they love it.:angel:
I understand what Chris meant above and I agree with it as it is another take on "sense of place". If I am doing photo documentary work, as I am doing these days, it takes a long time getting to know a place, the people, the customs and everything you can possibly find about that place. Capturing it on film is an evolutionary process that, once you have it all down, then you can say you have captured the "sense of place". Can it be done with one photograph? Yes, IMO, but it is more difficult than putting a body of work together. In some areas it may be easier to show it with one photograph and in other areas, it may be impossible.
The Online Photographer recently had a discussion about a tree in a field with no caption. Big deal, it was a tree. No caption needed. Right? Well, go there and read the story and it demonstrates why captions on photographs can mean everything. Sometimes the picture is all that is needed but then sometimes it is not enough for the image to be appreciated.
Looking forward to more images being posted!
🙂