Beautifully put. I agree with that distinction. A photograph often does not “tell” the story in the way writing or film might. It points toward one. It gives us a trace, a clue, a doorway. The rest happens somewhere between the image, the viewer, and whatever human experience we bring to it. That space is where photography becomes so interesting.
I agree. It’s the subjective nature of photography that lends itself to this paradigm. The image above tells no story. It’s the viewer who provides the filter of story from their own experience.
You are right from the artist's point of view, but the photo is a document at once, and the photographer should take that into account. Ansel Adams said, "Not everybody trusts paintings but people believe photographs." That is true, so sometimes photos, with or without meaning, are used for manipulation. A shining example is Afghan Girl by Steve McCurry - the story that was not told.
The NPPA Code of Ethics reads:
"Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work."
So, to complete the story, we should include at least a brief comment on the works we have shown. There is nothing unfinished in your photo of the pedestrian - you told us your story, and this moment is finished for us. Someone might say, "So hard a life for Asians in Switzerland; he is tired and sad..." But we will not believe that because we already have your comment - we, with you, do not know who he is, where he is going, or what he is thinking.
Thank you, Alexander — I agree, this is an important distinction.
A photograph can be open and mysterious, but it is also a document, and we have a responsibility not to guide the viewer toward a false story. A caption does not always need to explain everything, but it should be honest.
Sometimes the most honest thing we can say is simply: I do not know this person’s story. I only know what I saw for a fraction of a second.
And thank you for the kind words about the photograph.
A photograph does tell a story, but the photo itself is the half written story for the viewer to complete. A photograph is not a video spanning time, but a moment in time, leaving much of the story up to the viewer to complete.
I agree, Robert. A photograph can feel like a half-written story — not because it explains everything, but because it gives us just enough to begin imagining.
And maybe that is exactly where its power is. Unlike video, it does not carry us through time. It stops time. It gives us one fragment - and then asks the viewer to complete the rest, or simply sit with the mystery.
How many times have I heard from critics your photo does not tell a story .... an infinity number for sure. And I reply it is not a video ... it is just a moment of time, but I still get a low score. Oh well I plug on anyways. :)
I know exactly what you mean, Hubert. “Does it tell a story?” can sometimes become a very lazy way of judging a photograph.
A photograph does not have to behave like a film or a novel. Sometimes it is enough that it holds a moment, a mood, a tension, a question. And yes — we plug on anyway. 🙂
A photo for me is a mystery, a riddle, a puzzle that can never ever be solved however much it tempts and beguiles you to do so and that is precisely what fascinates me so much about many pictures. The thrill of them for me is their unsolvable uncanniness.
Beautifully said, Anton. I feel very close to that idea.
Some photographs become powerful not because they give us the answer, but because they keep the question alive. They tempt us to solve them, but the best ones never fully allow it. That unresolved, slightly uncanny space is often exactly where the photograph continues to breathe.
Tomasz - here’s my thought: neither the photographer nor the viewer knows what is the story of the man. Perhaps there isn’t really a story in the first place. Perhaps not all photographs have to say a story.
Do you think that if the photographer knows the story before taking the picture, the image would look different? Would the viewer also know more, if the photographer has more of the story to start with? This is what I think. Would’ve interested to hear your thoughts. Thank you.
Carmen, absolutely — and I think you are right: not every photograph has to “tell a story” in the literal sense.
Sometimes there is no story, only a presence, a gesture, a visual tension, a moment that briefly existed and then disappeared. For me, that is often enough.
And yes, I do think that if the photographer knows more, the image can sometimes feel different — maybe because the photographer’s attention changes, or the timing changes, or the emotional weight behind the image changes. But I don’t think the viewer necessarily receives that full knowledge. The photograph still has to live on its own.
So maybe the story is not inside the photograph in a complete way. Maybe the photograph only opens a small door — and what matters is whether we want to stand there for a moment and look through it.
Great article Tomasz! This is one of the delicious, possibly philosophical questions of photography. You do not get to know what the story is, but you can enjoy the thought of finding and making up your own solutions.
Another thing along this vein, is seeing a photo of something you cannot identify. It is a mystery! Sometimes you never learn the answer as to what it is. Sometimes it is better not to know, because the answer destroys the illusion. It now has a "Label". The label identifies the item and the item has now lost interest. And then you move on.
I've long preferred to think that photos rarely tell a story, but point at a story to be told.
Beautifully put. I agree with that distinction. A photograph often does not “tell” the story in the way writing or film might. It points toward one. It gives us a trace, a clue, a doorway. The rest happens somewhere between the image, the viewer, and whatever human experience we bring to it. That space is where photography becomes so interesting.
I agree. It’s the subjective nature of photography that lends itself to this paradigm. The image above tells no story. It’s the viewer who provides the filter of story from their own experience.
You are right from the artist's point of view, but the photo is a document at once, and the photographer should take that into account. Ansel Adams said, "Not everybody trusts paintings but people believe photographs." That is true, so sometimes photos, with or without meaning, are used for manipulation. A shining example is Afghan Girl by Steve McCurry - the story that was not told.
The NPPA Code of Ethics reads:
"Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work."
So, to complete the story, we should include at least a brief comment on the works we have shown. There is nothing unfinished in your photo of the pedestrian - you told us your story, and this moment is finished for us. Someone might say, "So hard a life for Asians in Switzerland; he is tired and sad..." But we will not believe that because we already have your comment - we, with you, do not know who he is, where he is going, or what he is thinking.
By the way, it is nice work, as usual!
Thank you, Alexander — I agree, this is an important distinction.
A photograph can be open and mysterious, but it is also a document, and we have a responsibility not to guide the viewer toward a false story. A caption does not always need to explain everything, but it should be honest.
Sometimes the most honest thing we can say is simply: I do not know this person’s story. I only know what I saw for a fraction of a second.
And thank you for the kind words about the photograph.
You welcome.
A photograph does tell a story, but the photo itself is the half written story for the viewer to complete. A photograph is not a video spanning time, but a moment in time, leaving much of the story up to the viewer to complete.
I agree, Robert. A photograph can feel like a half-written story — not because it explains everything, but because it gives us just enough to begin imagining.
And maybe that is exactly where its power is. Unlike video, it does not carry us through time. It stops time. It gives us one fragment - and then asks the viewer to complete the rest, or simply sit with the mystery.
Exactly!
How many times have I heard from critics your photo does not tell a story .... an infinity number for sure. And I reply it is not a video ... it is just a moment of time, but I still get a low score. Oh well I plug on anyways. :)
I know exactly what you mean, Hubert. “Does it tell a story?” can sometimes become a very lazy way of judging a photograph.
A photograph does not have to behave like a film or a novel. Sometimes it is enough that it holds a moment, a mood, a tension, a question. And yes — we plug on anyway. 🙂
A photo for me is a mystery, a riddle, a puzzle that can never ever be solved however much it tempts and beguiles you to do so and that is precisely what fascinates me so much about many pictures. The thrill of them for me is their unsolvable uncanniness.
Beautifully said, Anton. I feel very close to that idea.
Some photographs become powerful not because they give us the answer, but because they keep the question alive. They tempt us to solve them, but the best ones never fully allow it. That unresolved, slightly uncanny space is often exactly where the photograph continues to breathe.
Lie is an endless streams of what could be and what it’s isn’t .
Perhaps that drives our quest of adventure ; creativity and love .
Not knowing is one the basics of our existence .
But I really don’t know.
"All I know is that I know nothing"
© Socrates
Tomasz - here’s my thought: neither the photographer nor the viewer knows what is the story of the man. Perhaps there isn’t really a story in the first place. Perhaps not all photographs have to say a story.
Do you think that if the photographer knows the story before taking the picture, the image would look different? Would the viewer also know more, if the photographer has more of the story to start with? This is what I think. Would’ve interested to hear your thoughts. Thank you.
Carmen, absolutely — and I think you are right: not every photograph has to “tell a story” in the literal sense.
Sometimes there is no story, only a presence, a gesture, a visual tension, a moment that briefly existed and then disappeared. For me, that is often enough.
And yes, I do think that if the photographer knows more, the image can sometimes feel different — maybe because the photographer’s attention changes, or the timing changes, or the emotional weight behind the image changes. But I don’t think the viewer necessarily receives that full knowledge. The photograph still has to live on its own.
So maybe the story is not inside the photograph in a complete way. Maybe the photograph only opens a small door — and what matters is whether we want to stand there for a moment and look through it.
Great article Tomasz! This is one of the delicious, possibly philosophical questions of photography. You do not get to know what the story is, but you can enjoy the thought of finding and making up your own solutions.
Another thing along this vein, is seeing a photo of something you cannot identify. It is a mystery! Sometimes you never learn the answer as to what it is. Sometimes it is better not to know, because the answer destroys the illusion. It now has a "Label". The label identifies the item and the item has now lost interest. And then you move on.
I couldn't agree more xx
Thank you, this is a perfect explanation of photography that is art.
Thank you, Karin.
Love this. Thanks for sharing
Thank you so much, Isaac.
No cuenta una historia, solo muestra un momento que puede decir todo lo que quieras ver o imaginar...Me gusta..!
As Todd Hido said. "My job is not to tell the story. But, to set the scene so a story can be found"