Earlier this week I posted a photo and asked what people thought the story was. I wasn't feeling well, the result of an "airliner cold," but I thought some banter about a light-hearted photo might perk me up. Well, let me tell you, in short order someone posted a rather splenetic response, informing me that photos don't tell stories. Not wanting to throw cold water on the conversation, I responded that I didn't agree but the person was entitled to his opinion.

Not good enough! The writer wrote back, citing sources and broadening his argument in an attempt to completely discredit the notion that a photo could tell a story. As I said, I wasn't feeling well, so I wrote it off as the rantings of some sparrow-fart (a nod to Kurt Vonnegut for that descriptor) and tried to put it behind me.

But it nagged at me. I thought of the photo of the sailor kissing the nurse in Times Square at the end of WWII, the Vietnamese girl running naked with festering burns caused by napalm, the recent photo of the Syrian child sitting bloodied and dazed in an ambulance. (I'm betting that every one of you knows exactly what photos I've just listed.) And I asked myself, "If those images aren't telling a story, then why have they become iconic?"

Then, on Tuesday evening, I attended my camera club meeting, and half of the meeting was dedicated to a "member critique," in which a panel of three of our better photographers sat and commented on images that members had submitted for evaluation. It's a really nice event, and everyone learns from it, whether they agree or disagree with the comments. And it happened: over and over, the panel members included an assessment of the photos' story-telling quality. Over and over, I heard, "This image tells a (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?

OK, I have gone through this thread and I'm not going to comment on your hypothesis except to state a couple of highly biased opinions. Call it hijacking; call it flaming. The member who chose to disagree did so, not because he believes what he says, but because he is an angry unimaginative cold-hearted lonely narcissist who would argue with a dead fish.

(And don't bother to respond, Floyd. I'll just ignore you!)

RD, you have provided so many good examples that there should be no argument. Sure, a photograph can be taken that does not tell a story, but many do. If people don't want to call it a story, they can refer to it as a learning experience. The photo of Kim Phúc (Phan Thị Kim Phúc OOnt), the nine year old "Napalm Girl" by Nick Ut tells a story loud and clear, as does the photo of General Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a prisoner and as do many of the individual photos taken at Auschwitz. Anybody who can't read the story in these pictures and/or learn a lesson from them is either a recluse, a fool or a pathetic imbecile.

Earlier this week I posted a photo and asked what people thought the story was. I wasn't feeling well, the result of an "airliner cold," but I thought some banter about a light-hearted photo might perk me up. Well, let me tell you, in short order someone posted a rather splenetic response, informing me that photos don't tell stories. Not wanting to throw cold water on the conversation, I responded that I didn't agree but the person was entitled to his opinion.

Not good enough! The writer wrote back, citing sources and broadening his argument in an attempt to completely discredit the notion that a photo could tell a story. As I said, I wasn't feeling well, so I wrote it off as the rantings of some sparrow-fart (a nod to Kurt Vonnegut for that descriptor) and tried to put it behind me.

But it nagged at me. I thought of the photo of the sailor kissing the nurse in Times Square at the end of WWII, the Vietnamese girl running naked with festering burns caused by napalm, the recent photo of the Syrian child sitting bloodied and dazed in an ambulance. (I'm betting that every one of you knows exactly what photos I've just listed.) And I asked myself, "If those images aren't telling a story, then why have they become iconic?"

Then, on Tuesday evening, I attended my camera club meeting, and half of the meeting was dedicated to a "member critique," in which a panel of three of our better photographers sat and commented on images that members had submitted for evaluation. It's a really nice event, and everyone learns from it, whether they agree or disagree with the comments. And it happened: over and over, the panel members included an assessment of the photos' story-telling quality. Over and over, I heard, "This image tells a (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?

Of course photos tell stories. Anyone who thinks they don't is.......well, you know, opinions are like as*ho**s; everyone has one but that doesn't mean they have any validity or that we want to hear or see it. If photos don't tell stories, then what is a photojournalist and why do publishers print photos when all they'd need do is print the word. How did Kodak make millions, if not billions with the slogan a photo tells a thousand words? Anyone who thinks photos don't tell stories has got to have a part of their brain that is dead and not functioning. How many photojournalists over the years have started countrywide and worldwide attention to a problem or cause with a photo or a series of photos. Looking at a photo and having it create an emotion in us is part of being human and may be the one thing or of the few things that separate us from the animal world.