Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I really enjoy most of the discussions at RFF ... but sometimes they do go on a bit and I find myself browsing the gear threads! 
FrankS
Registered User
Or even a good bag thread.
jwc57
Well-known
It is cheaper for me if we stick to philosophy. I have too many bags now. Opinions are cheap.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
x-ray
Veteran
If you don't believe a single photo tells a story then follow the link or google Pulitzer winning photos. They may not tell the entire story but the majority convey the basic story.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...AA&biw=320&bih=356&sei=4BtiUbDLGYim9gSbnIH4BA
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...AA&biw=320&bih=356&sei=4BtiUbDLGYim9gSbnIH4BA
airfrogusmc
Veteran
All great single photographs but they are not the story tellers.
Its all been talked to death over hear
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131018
Were just going to have to agree to disagree. And just because one view is more popular than another it doesn't mean that the popular view is right. There are many myths that a majority of people believe to be true and the world of photography is no exception. A lot of newspapers could save a small fortune in indeed a single photograph could tell a story. No need for copy writers or photo essays.
Its all been talked to death over hear
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131018
Were just going to have to agree to disagree. And just because one view is more popular than another it doesn't mean that the popular view is right. There are many myths that a majority of people believe to be true and the world of photography is no exception. A lot of newspapers could save a small fortune in indeed a single photograph could tell a story. No need for copy writers or photo essays.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Photography and forensics have a little in common IMO ... they can both reconstruct the past and point to the future.
Lss
Well-known
A lot of newspapers are mostly just saving anyway, it seems. However, for me there is a difference between a story and the story a newspaper, or whoever, wishes to present. That is one reason there is a need for many things.
KarlG
Established
I didn't not vote disagree on this one.
A single picture may not tell the entire story, but it most certainly can tell a story.
A single picture may not tell the entire story, but it most certainly can tell a story.
FrankS
Registered User
Sorry for the double negative wording.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
Let's look at this from the other direction...can a story give us an image and will that image be exactly the same in everyone's mind...???
one90guy
Well-known
Not sure that I have ever recognized a story in a photo. But have seen photos that made a strong impact on me. I take photos of things that I find interesting colors or shapes, and confess once developed or downloaded I do not see what caught my interest.in a lot of them. The one thing I am sure about is I enjoyed taking each shot.
David
David
charjohncarter
Veteran
I put agree reluctantly, because it can make you wonder what is going on, as this one by Cindy Sherman:
Photo by Cindy Sherman.
Photo by Cindy Sherman.
Clint Troy
Well-known
Each and every Pulitzer photograph tells a powerful story. You know. What would be the point otherwise?
redisburning
Well-known
I think a photo tells a story in the same way an MTF graph tells you about a lens.
just my opinion here, but a photograph captures vastly more information about a slice of time viewed in effectively 3 dimensions (thank you, brain) than we see but is completely ineffective at providing a information in either side of the photograph timewise. to me, it's really not that different than evaluating a graph at a certain point. the next point might flow logically from the slice you are examining or it might be completely disparate. at any rate, I find attempting to impose a narrative on a photograph to be a waste of my time, and I haven't found a person whose work I like that follows that philosophy, at least to my knowledge. If you are one of the 83% of the people who voted in the negative, I urge you to continue on. You probably like different photographers than I, and get something different out of photography. And you probably get more out of it than I do.
just my opinion here, but a photograph captures vastly more information about a slice of time viewed in effectively 3 dimensions (thank you, brain) than we see but is completely ineffective at providing a information in either side of the photograph timewise. to me, it's really not that different than evaluating a graph at a certain point. the next point might flow logically from the slice you are examining or it might be completely disparate. at any rate, I find attempting to impose a narrative on a photograph to be a waste of my time, and I haven't found a person whose work I like that follows that philosophy, at least to my knowledge. If you are one of the 83% of the people who voted in the negative, I urge you to continue on. You probably like different photographers than I, and get something different out of photography. And you probably get more out of it than I do.
steveniphoto
Well-known
i disagree. pictures dont tell stories.
even Pulitzer Prize winning pictures dont mean anything without the little caption telling you whats happening.
for example, this image taken by Kyoichi Sawada:
http://i2.wp.com/listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/3553432_640px.jpeg.jpg?resize=600,800
without the caption, the picture tells you very very little about what is happening. where? when? who? what? nothing is told. the only thing we see is a tank with the US logo on it and a man tied to it. anything you add from there is just your own assumption.
or this photo by Paul Vathis:
http://i2.wp.com/listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/serious-steps.jpeg.jpg?resize=600,649
who are the men? when was this taken? under what circumstances? whats going on? there is absolutely no story told. you know what it looks like, but not whats happening.
“The fact that photographs — they’re mute, they don’t have any narrative ability at all. You know what something looks like, but you don’t know what’s happening, you don’t know whether the hat’s being held or is it being put on her head or taken off her head. From the photograph, you don’t know that. A piece of time and space is well described. But not what is happening.”
“I think that there isn’t a photograph in the world that has any narrative ability. Any of ‘em. They do not tell stories – they show you what something looks like. To a camera. The minute you relate this thing to what was photographed — it’s a lie. It’s two-dimensional. It’s the illusion of literal description."
and of course, we can agree to disagree. i think sometimes we put too much emphasis on things like this instead of the actual imaging making process, myself included.
even Pulitzer Prize winning pictures dont mean anything without the little caption telling you whats happening.
for example, this image taken by Kyoichi Sawada:
http://i2.wp.com/listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/3553432_640px.jpeg.jpg?resize=600,800
without the caption, the picture tells you very very little about what is happening. where? when? who? what? nothing is told. the only thing we see is a tank with the US logo on it and a man tied to it. anything you add from there is just your own assumption.
or this photo by Paul Vathis:
http://i2.wp.com/listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/serious-steps.jpeg.jpg?resize=600,649
who are the men? when was this taken? under what circumstances? whats going on? there is absolutely no story told. you know what it looks like, but not whats happening.
“The fact that photographs — they’re mute, they don’t have any narrative ability at all. You know what something looks like, but you don’t know what’s happening, you don’t know whether the hat’s being held or is it being put on her head or taken off her head. From the photograph, you don’t know that. A piece of time and space is well described. But not what is happening.”
“I think that there isn’t a photograph in the world that has any narrative ability. Any of ‘em. They do not tell stories – they show you what something looks like. To a camera. The minute you relate this thing to what was photographed — it’s a lie. It’s two-dimensional. It’s the illusion of literal description."
and of course, we can agree to disagree. i think sometimes we put too much emphasis on things like this instead of the actual imaging making process, myself included.
28mm
Established
You should re-read the poll.
Anyways, can't wait for the third installment of this series.. some pictures might tell some stories!
--s
Well-known
pakeha
Well-known
Maybe a single image can hint at a story, but no, it cannot `tell' a story.A story has connected events . All the images posted as examples so far are images that have been seen often, we know the story, OR at least think we know the story. Also, your knowledge of the story may be very different from the next persons.Images from Vietnam [ad nausea] are perhaps the perfect example.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Didn't see the other thread.
Disagree in this thread, although the question and responses are unsatisfying, too simplistic.
IMO, a single, still photograph can suggest or illuminate/illustrate a story, but cannot narrate one. That is, a single still photo can encompass and/or provide emotional grist, epitomizing a story, but has insufficient information to articulate the narrative.
G
Disagree in this thread, although the question and responses are unsatisfying, too simplistic.
IMO, a single, still photograph can suggest or illuminate/illustrate a story, but cannot narrate one. That is, a single still photo can encompass and/or provide emotional grist, epitomizing a story, but has insufficient information to articulate the narrative.
G