rdgreenwood wrote:
(You insert the adjective) story." Over and over, the panel members alluded to story telling as a normal and crucial element of their evaluation.
So here's my question--I know, I know, it's about time I got to my question--Do you think photos tell stories? Obviously, I do. Obviously, at least one person doesn't. What do you think?
Sorry buddy but you're at least half wrong.
First, let me ask, what was wrong with all the "links" that the responder provided...., did you read them? I didn't see them, that must have been in the gallery.
Next, there are a LOT of people that have no training in photography. They learn from others whether it's right or wrong, then repeat it further down the line. Yes, including judges. Some are trained, some are not. One can shoot for 50 years and not know a lot about the medium of photography.
Books are a collection of words assemble by the author "generally", specifically to tell a story. It's not visual!
Photography is a VISUAL MEDIA, therefore it is intended to evoke an "emotion, reaction or feeling or responce" from us.
This could come in the form of a long story as some are eluding to, or as a one word knee jerk emotion such as anger.
I've said here MANY times that in photography, "composition is king", but that means how the image is arranged, not necessarily what story it's telling.
Some images could read like a book but others are purely GRAPHIC, maybe no story just an assault on our senses and difficult to explain in words. That depends on the photographer and how successful they were.
A lack of photographic knowledge is the reason some come out of a museum and say "those photographs were pure trash"! It's usually because they are looking for the story and not the composition!!! They don't know anything about composition.
rd, does any of this make any sense? Perhaps our friends here with BFA's can shed better light on this story stuff, or lack of it!
SS