I see a lot of terrible junk posted here; out of focus, composition is terrible, photo sucks big time, color off by 60-70 units; just disgusting. Many do no post processing or have no clue how to do it, etc.... But you know what, I look at, puke internally (every piece of crap tells a story too) and go on. If the person is looking for help and posts the photo as downloadable, I answer them privately and try to help them, but I don't publicly put them down; I only attack who attacks me. If we all did that, there would be no attacking on the hogg. Don't forget, there are beginners here trying to learn. But, unfortunately, as we all know, there are those who just want to bully, makes them feel like the big man (only way they can get it) (you know the type, the one's with the microscopic........), you get my drift, don't you.

Every picture has a technical story behind it; ie, where & when it was taken, what camera & lens, what film used, what aperture and shutter speed, etcetera. There's a lot to be learned from that info.

Then there's the moment in time a photograph captures; who can forget pics of Hiroshima? the photo of Vietnamese Mahayana Buddhist monk Thích Quang Duc who burned himself to death at a busy intersection in Saigon? The Tsunami in Thailand? And Eddie Adams photo of the prisoner being executed in Saigaon?

“Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world”, AP photojournalist Eddie Adams once wrote. A fitting quote for Adams, because his 1968 photograph of an officer shooting a handcuffed prisoner in the head at point-blank range not only earned him a Pulitzer Prize in 1969, but also went a long way toward souring Americans’ attitudes about the Vietnam War.

Google: "Pulitzer prize winning images" and take a gander. I dare anyone to say that these images don't tell a story. Nuff' said.

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?

I think you DID encounter a 'ranting sparrow fart!'

Some people are just contrarians for the sake of it.

There is little question of the storytelling power of images. Photography is a visual language with compositional structure and situational syntax. A good photographer can complete a story in an instant's glance that would take a writer several paragraphs to convey less completely.

The very definition of 'photojournalism' is "storytelling with words and pictures'. So there is a complementary aspect that is more powerful than words or photos alone.

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?

I think you DID encounter a 'ranting sparrow fart!'

Some people are just contrarians for the sake of it.

There is little question of the storytelling power of images. Photography is a visual language with compositional structure and situational syntax. A good photographer can complete a story in an instant's glance that would take a writer several paragraphs to convey less completely.

The very definition of 'photojournalism' is "storytelling with words and pictures'. So there is a complementary aspect that is more powerful than words or photos alone.

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.