Street Photo---Photographers Photographing Horse
Sep 11, 2019 10:19:47 #
I like the possibilities for thinking in this somewhat ordinary photo. What might the horse be experiencing? Why shoot the horse? What's "special" about the world and what's not? And a few other things.
Sep 11, 2019 10:54:16 #
They have no interest in the horse(s), they're doing macro-photography of the bark.
Sep 11, 2019 13:00:25 #
stonecherub wrote:
They have no interest in the horse(s), they're doing macro-photography of the bark.
😊
Sep 12, 2019 08:15:27 #
artBob wrote:
...Why shoot the horse? ...
The horse broke a leg?
Well, that was always why they shot the horse in the old Westerns.
Re: Presented shot. I think that having a greater suggestion that the photographers were aiming at the horse, and the horse on the right out of the frame, would strengthen the story.
Sep 12, 2019 09:53:18 #
The two women are Hog members, and they just enjoy shooting any subject they can find. 
Sep 12, 2019 12:53:02 #
NJFrank wrote:
The two women are Hog members, and they just enjoy shooting any subject they can find.
I resemble that remark!
Sep 12, 2019 17:56:35 #
Sep 13, 2019 00:32:39 #
I get it. I like it. With the proper caption those themes could be conveyed to the viewers. Captions are important.
Just saying, the question I might ask is "by itself, with no caption, what story is told by this image?"
Just saying, the question I might ask is "by itself, with no caption, what story is told by this image?"
Sep 13, 2019 08:51:49 #
JD750 wrote:
I get it. I like it. With the proper caption those themes could be conveyed to the viewers. Captions are important.
Just saying, the question I might ask is "by itself, with no caption, what story is told by this image?"
Just saying, the question I might ask is "by itself, with no caption, what story is told by this image?"
Good point. Thanks. Also tells me the shot might not be communicating visually, if it needs a caption. Decisions, decisions.
Sep 13, 2019 12:35:07 #
JD750 wrote:
I get it. I like it. With the proper caption those themes could be conveyed to the viewers. Captions are important.
Just saying, the question I might ask is "by itself, with no caption, what story is told by this image?"
Just saying, the question I might ask is "by itself, with no caption, what story is told by this image?"
“Caption” =/versus “Title”?
During a seminar on “Titling” artworks that I attended in the late 80s an unexpectedly heated argument arose on the equivalence of - versus differences between - “titles” and “captions” and devolved into additional disputation re: the oft-presumed edict that each image MUST tell a story.
Some held that many images “tell no tale” but can bear a title, and opined that images clearly telling a story may be unnecessarily captioned, and may actually need neither title nor caption (if the artist differentiates between the two).
Of course, the dispute was not resolved - and is not likely to be resolved here.
Anyway...thoughts?
Dave
Sep 13, 2019 12:48:45 #
artBob wrote:
Good point. Thanks. Also tells me the shot might not be communicating visually, if it needs a caption. Decisions, decisions.
I too like the challenge of catching the photographer at work, without being seen. Honestly I didn't understand that about this image until I read the description. Maybe I didn't spend enough time looking at it but that theme did not jump out at me.
I think the point of view, from directly behind, is not as strong visually because the cameras are out of sight, and the branches are somewhat of a distraction as well.
Sep 13, 2019 12:50:02 #
Uuglypher wrote:
“Caption” =/versus “Title”? br br During a semina... (show quote)
Dave, I think the dispute will indisputably never end. Also, we seem to be getting by just fine. To add to the ramifications, the director Stanley Kubrick, when asked to "explain" the movie "2001," said, "If DaVinci had said of [captioned ?] the Mona Lisa, 'This woman is smiling because she's hiding a secret from her lover,' it would have ruined the painting forever."
Bob
Sep 14, 2019 02:02:21 #
I have never understood WHY an image needs to tell a story. What "story" is a beautiful landscape telling? What "story" is a captivating abstract telling? What possible story could they be telling? To me, it's just plain nonsense. Now, when it comes to photojournalism it's another matter. In that case, it's very easy for a photo to tell a story...that's why it was taken.
Sep 14, 2019 02:24:01 #
neilds37 wrote:
I have never understood WHY an image needs to tell a story. What "story" is a beautiful landscape telling? What "story" is a captivating abstract telling? What possible story could they be telling? To me, it's just plain nonsense. Now, when it comes to photojournalism it's another matter. In that case, it's very easy for a photo to tell a story...that's why it was taken.
Well if you view what you described as a “beautiful landscape” then for you that is the story. It is beautiful.
What story is a captivating abstract telling? What emotion do you feel when looking at it? That is the story.
Technological advancements have enabled photography, more and more, to move from a technical craft to art. This is why people talk about the story.
Sep 14, 2019 02:56:03 #
JD750 wrote:
Well if you view what you described as a “beautiful landscape” then for you that is the story. It is beautiful.
What story is a captivating abstract telling? What emotion do you feel when looking at it? That is the story.
Technological advancements have enabled photography, more and more, to move from a technical craft to art. This is why people talk about the story.
What story is a captivating abstract telling? What emotion do you feel when looking at it? That is the story.
Technological advancements have enabled photography, more and more, to move from a technical craft to art. This is why people talk about the story.
I would say then that "story" is a misleading word. What you describe is "adjective".
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.