Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Pay attention to what people are saying! You and several others are arguing with nobody. Not one person has suggested or so much as hinted that what you just said is not true.

Multiple images can tell a story. An image with a title or other text, or accompanied by spoken words, can tell a story. Everyone agrees with all of that. It is logical and does not require twisting the meaning of words.

So why rant about a non controversial red herring?

The discussion of interest is only of whether a single image by itself, absent another image and absent other external context, can provide a narrative.

Logically it cannot. Emotionally people want to say it can. Look at the lack of emotion in arguments that one image cannot tell a story! Just logic. Then look at arguments saying there are stories... loaded with insults and emotions, and lacking in facts and logic.

See the connection...

Hip Coyote

If photos do not tell stories, then there would be no Pulitzer for photos....such as the "Napalm Girl" who was naked running from a napalm strike or the "Saigon Execution."

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Take these images out of the context and tell me what these images say...

THAT is the point. An image alone does not convey anything than than raise the usual WWWWW questions.

Good luck answering the 5Ws just looking at an image with no context.

chevman Loc: Matthews, North Carolina

All photos are some ones story. But another onlooker may not see the story or they may not have much of an imagination, or they may just not like the picture. It's subjective as is all art forms. As for giving a negative critique of something I disagree, unless the person asks for it. But the critique should be informative and helpful as to how to improve the composition, make the story more obvious, or the picture more appealing to look at, etc. Just my own personal opinion, but I don't think it is productive to leave a negative comment without some positive encouragement, or helpful advice.
____________________________
Jerry in NC

Hip Coyote

I respectfully disagree

who...a soldier killing another solder
what...an execution...obviously in the street...no due process of any sort
where...because of the time it was taken and obvious races of the people, the Vietnam War
why...lack of humanity..sheer brutality of the moment. I think the photos may not answer why but asks why.
when...current time...as reported in news.

Who...a young innocent girl running from an obvious napalm strike. Her nakedness speaks volumes about her condition.
what....time of war...girl is naked..flames in background.
where...because of the time, it is obviously Vietnam or Cambodia.
why...that is the question of the photo...why
when...the image is so iconic that most people know the era when the photo was taken.

I think they do answer the questions...but we agree to disagree.

Best regards,

Rick

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Photos record visual history. Some, like your citation, rise to iconic status in which the nature of an episode is encapsulated. Yes, photos have the power of telling a story. And in compelling ways.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

I must take minor exception your remark "not every photo tells a story" I would edit to insert "compelling" before "story".

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

Bits of your argument make sense, but the whole is deeply flawed. You're trying to divorce emotion and logic, but that ignores the simple fact of existence: we think, therefore we are. We are the context within which the story is created. The story is created within us. We, humans, people, viewers, photographers, etc., come to an image and impose upon it our story. When I made the original posting, I didn't imply that there was only one story; I asked the viewers to suggest their interpretation. You, however, got so tied up in the idea that you knew so much that you could make blanket declarations. Interestingly, you created a much more complex story in your insistence that there could be no story behind an image. Perhaps the most memorable story behind the image of the two older people taking a selfie while standing next to an exquisite cathedral, is that someone could see it and not ask, "What does it tell us about ourselves that we can ignore the beauty around us and focus on a photograph of ourselves with little sign of interest in the background?"

Logic is a wonderful thing, but it is only meaningful when it's applied to a meaningful situation. It's the process of applying that logic that makes it meaningful. The two people kissing in Times Square, the child running from her pain, all photos, paintings, poems, you name it, that have assumed "iconic" status in our collective world view, only tell a story because they have been given a context by human minds. If you ran them together, tied them up like a film strip, they wouldn't make sense. Don't tell me it takes more than one image to tell a story. It's not mathematical; it's not logical. It's a marriage of the viewed image and the human need to assign greater meaning. You can divorce emotion and logic if you wish, but most humans choose to allow them to work together and help them to understand the universe in which they operate. Call it context if you will, I call it the human story.

We think, therefore we are. We bring our context and tell our story.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

"Thinking in black and white" evokes something profound. What does it mean the think without color - in less than 10,000 words to spare some too much labor.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Yes, context is everything. Without it we don't know what the story is. Before there were photographs, there were statues and painting done to commemorate victorious battles, people, etc. But someone looking at those statues in the park covered with pigeon poop might think, there's someone riding a horse. The picture of the Vietnamese girl could be interpreted as someone whose house was on fire. The execution could be considered killing a deserter. Show those pics to someone in a hundred years, without context and there's no telling what the story will be.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Your context. The image doesn't have temporal context, which is required if there is a story. You can imagine your story if you choose, but no single image can tell you a story.

But we should still note that you personally find gratuitous insults necessary. You argue that emotions are logic, and do that with emotional context. Logically that simply is not valid, though we'd all be hard pressed to deny that for many people it is effective. Consider which people it has the most effect on...

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

This has been a great thread... except for the mudslinging. I mean, really, everyone is entitled to an opinion, so let them express it. Apaflo has provided two "expert" references that state unequivocally that photos DO NOT tell stories. Those are, in reality, just two opinions, and he chooses to believe them, so that makes three opinions against. A few others have jumped on that bandwagon by splitting hairs on terminology and word definitions, while others have chosen to take a step back, take in the whole image and let it arouse an emotion that depends on their own context. The latter group feel that photos indeed do tell stories, and there are plenty of "experts" who would support that notion.

I think it depends on how you approach the topic. Beginning with the photo itself, almost everyone will agree that a single photo is a capture of a moment in time. But is that even true? In today's world of digital photography, is it not actually a massaged collection of pixels on a monitor or dots of ink on paper that may belie the reality of the scene? The techno-geek-engineer-pixel-peeper can go on at length about the bit depth of the data file, the size and density of the dots on the monitor or paper, the good and not-so-good aspects of the software algorithms that generated the collection of dots, the gamma setting on the monitor, the quality of the paper, etc, without ever seeing what the photographer intended to present. At the other extreme are the artistically inclined who could make up an amazing story about a totally black or totally white image (of course, the geek would be impressed by the purity of the rendition). A far more interesting story could be concocted about a white blob -- or perfect circle! -- on a black background. Can you imagine comparing the descriptions (stories, if you like) of a 16-band grey scale as told by the geek and the artist? What about 1024, 2048 or more bands? We have not even gotten to colour, or a life-like image!!!

I do mostly travel and landscape photography, which to me has little story value (especially when there are no people in the picture). I supplement the photos of important landmarks like churches, museums or monuments with snapshots (not photos!!) of a plaque or sign so that I can correctly identify what is in the photo. The sign snapshots are just information for me, but some might say those images have more story in them than the photos of the landmark! I put this forth to support my position that NOT ALL photos tell, have to tell, or are intended to tell a story.

But in my opinion, there clearly is a class of photographs that do tell a story. The photographer took the photo to tell the story that he saw, and the viewer may or may not see the same story. Everyone brings their life experiences to the interpretation of the story-telling photo, so we cannot expect everyone to see the same story, or sometimes any story at all. The image of someone about to be assassinated has powerful significance to a family who has lost a loved one to this very act, while it may be totally unmoving to the video game zealot who spends his entire day killing avatars on a screen and whose first response might be, "Wow, where can I get a gun like that?"

As I said, a great question and interesting responses that span the gamut of ALWAYS, YES, MAYBE/SOMETIMES, NO and NEVER. I can only conclude that there is no correct answer, but as is often the case on UHH, the posts reveal a great deal about the poster.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The story, that nearly everyone got immediately from both of those, is that war is an atrocity. It provided a gut level urge to action --- war protests.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

War is an atrocity is a judgement, not a story.

Can a photograph start events that become history (instead of story)? Yes. No doubt. You do not need war images to realize that.

Say the image was a call for 'awakening' and I will agree. A story? I do not. An illustration to a story (past or on going) I will also agree.