My pet peeve... "What story does your photo tell?"

Sincere thanks to everyone that replied. It was interesting to read the wide array of reactions, opinions, and takes on the concept in question! In my own opinion, there were some really profound thoughts presented.

I didn't expect this amount of replies. As some of you mentioned, I also found myself agreeing and disagreeing with many points on either side.

I should also note to those who mentioned this matter, this has nothing to do with what anyone has ever said about my photos. It is just a general thing I've noticed here and there. I really am not taking it as seriously as some of you think; it was just a minor annoyance that I disagreed with, but I am certainly not letting it get to me in that way. It was just a thing I thought would be interesting to discuss.

Additionally, I've never tried to control anyone's reaction about my photos, and I always take all opinions as they come, even those I may not agree with. I completely agree with those of you that said that people are entitled to their opinions and standards, and if I am going to share/involve/ask for input from other people about my photographs, I am asking for their opinion and of course am in no place to impose my views on their reaction.

Thanks again to all, and hopefully I didn't get anyone too riled up! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flyingSquirrel

Something that has been bugging me for a while now, and I finally decided to bring it up, is the old saying to the effect of "What is the story that your photo tells?" or "A photo must tell a story or it's not a good photo", etc.
. . .
I'm curious what your opinions on the matter are.

---

The question and the statement as examples which ‘peeve’ you - are non sequitur.
I might ask the first as part of the interrogation of a Photograph – but I don’t ever believe I have stated the second.

I think the better question to ask is: “What PURPOSE does this Photograph serve?” and then interrogate the image from that first premise.

WW

I remember reading an article many years ago about the artist and the critic. It gave an example of comments about a painting by both. The critic was gushing all these adjectives, finding meaning here there and everywhere, how this element meant this and that element meant that and there was an overall story captured so ably by the artist. The artist just said that he painted the piece and it was for others to find their own meaning in it.
I liked that comparison and I will personally agree with the artist. I create an image because I find something interesting. What I see may not be able to be consciously realised or be able to be described. I will let others find whatever meaning they wish in it, if any.

We photographers may view many more images than a non-photographer. As such we often develop a different eye/sensibility (as described by others). The image will be viewed differently based on the experiences and mindset of the viewer. I am not all things to all men, and I don't even try to be. Long live idnividuality (deliberate).

Graham

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrahamH

I remember reading an article many years ago about the artist and the critic. It gave an example of comments about a painting by both. The critic was gushing all these adjectives, finding meaning here there and everywhere, how this element meant this and that element meant that and there was an overall story captured so ably by the artist. The artist just said that he painted the piece and it was for others to find their own meaning in it.
I liked that comparison and I will personally agree with the artist. I create an image because I find something interesting. What I see may not be able to be consciously realised or be able to be described. I will let others find whatever meaning they wish in it, if any.

We photographers may view many more images than a non-photographer. As such we often develop a different eye/sensibility (as described by others). The image will be viewed differently based on the experiences and mindset of the viewer. I am not all things to all men, and I don't even try to be. Long live idnividuality (deliberate).

Graham

---

The same can be said for the short story format, fill the story with imagery, words, action, a title and hopefully the intent comes across. Perhaps different meanings for different people can evolve from the same story or image. That may not be the artist's intention but at least some interpretation has occurred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrahamH

The critic was gushing all these adjectives, finding meaning here there and everywhere, how this element meant this and that element meant that and there was an overall story captured so ably by the artist. The artist just said that he painted the piece and it was for others to find their own meaning in it.

---

I had a final exam in college to write an essay about the symbolism in the first book of the Tolkien trilogy. I began the essay with a quote from the author's forward, which explained that there was no symbolism. The rest of the essay was about why I liked the book and made no attempt to explain any symbolism in it. The professor gave me an "A."

My advice to you is to make things simpler. People will always climb into your head and soul. And I think that even asking not to do this will not be successful. Take care of your nerves. All the while, I quarreled with teachers about my vision of various events in the book. Because of this, I was always given bad grades.Even had to use the services of the best assignment writing services. I really liked papersbattle.com, because it collected various reviews, with which I found the best servir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tclune

Or even your guiding principles. In my day, they used to say, "The principal is my pal" as a mnemonic device for remembering that "-p-a-l" is the person who runs a school and "-p-l-e" is the tenet or belief.

---

That had quite an affect on the effect of a storey ... ;)

Being a member of a photography club for many years, and having experienced many competitions and hence seen thousands of generally very good images, the comment that bugs Matthew (and me) appears to be one of the favourite clichés of visiting independent judges.

It might be expressed in the form of, "Now this is a good image because it tells us a story," which is of little use to those of us who have no idea what story he/she sees in the photo, neither does it help the photographer to know whether the judge has perceived any story that was intended.

It is one of many judges' cliché comments used to justify their marking and, as others have mentioned here, it often has little relevance, meaning, or value when describing many very good images, perhaps even more so when stated in its negative form.

Another one which bugs me is, "There is nowhere for my eye to rest," when it seems clear to many of us that the photographer's intention was, e.g., either the impact of the image viewed as a whole or, to encourage the viewer to enjoy exploring all the elements within the image.

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." (AA)

Philip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayland

I take pictures to please myself, sometimes if I'm lucky they please other people too.

---

A resurrected thread from 2013. Wow.

This is my thinking as well. Once in a while I will have a photo of mine printed on metal but for the most part, mine are in my computer and for my own enjoyment.

Quote:

---

A resurrected thread from 2013. Wow.

---

Indeed. Makes me realize how long I've been hanging out here, virtually speaking.

Quote:

---

I think the better question to ask is: “What PURPOSE does this Photograph serve?” and then interrogate the image from that first premise.

---

I agree. My version of this is "what is this picture about?" I can answer that question for most of my images. I have no idea what "story they tell"

Quote:

---

I take pictures to please myself, sometimes if I'm lucky they please other people too.

---

Quote:

---

for the most part, mine are in my computer and for my own enjoyment.

---

I only take the photos I want to take and don't do it to please others. However, I find it very enjoyable to see them hanging, and I also find it enjoyable when other people enjoy them. If people don't enjoy them, it doesn't matter to me. The number of people who enjoy my bug photos is very small, but I still enjoy taking them. However, it's nice when people do enjoy my photos. It's very much like cooking a good meal: I can enjoy it by myself, but it's much more enjoyable to share it.

Let me throw a different perspective from one who judges photo competitions at a local, regional and national level. I also compete at those levels, not so much from a competitive standpoint, but to better understand where I stand versus my peers, which helps me improve my image making.

These comments bother me too and reflect poorly on the quality of the judge. I hear comments like those as well and they bother me as well, just as comments on using specific rules of composition (which are often little more than someone trying to quantify photographic practices), shifting shooting position (there is no way for the judge to know if that was even possible) or my least favourite of them all' "I would not have taken the shot like this".

When judging an image, it is all about three key components; the technical choices made by the photographer, the way that the various elements (including negative space) are arranged in the image and the emotional impact that the image has on the viewer. Yes, there is an element of opinion, but when working with trained judges (as opposed to reputable photographers), it is rare to see scores that are more than a point or so apart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James G

I've been reading this thread and finding myself in agreement with all sides, and at the same time disagreeing with all sides!
This maybe because at a personal level, photography is the profound enjoyment of capturing or simply viewing images for their own sake.
Sometimes I can imagine a 'story', other times I am stunned by detail, tone or vibrance, or maybe the impossibility of what I seem to be seeing. Other times it's memory that makes the image or memory and emotion together. Sometimes it's just the light and shade that does it for me.

I try to capture images that I like or have meaning to me. I like images generated by other people particularly when they present me with something I either never thought about, or when the presentation shows me something in a way I never thought of, and I most like images where I am surprised or engaged, (emotionally, visually any which way you want to cut it.....)

Photography, for me at least, is not defined by anything other than the medium itself, and the genius of the person taking the chance and risk to capture and present the image.

I'm reminded of the PAD (Photograph a day) exercise we were challenged to undertake a couple of years back. The aim was simple, just take a picture that you were prepared to put on display, every day for a month. i.e no plan needed, no specific need to have a message, story, theme, technical edge etc.. just find and present the image you were happy to show others.

The sheer variety of images that followed was phenomenal and I suspect, if analysed in the context of this discussion thread there were examples of every opinion so far expressed.

James

---

I'm with James on this. An image MAY tell a story, or it may NOT. Some images are made purely and ONLY for the joy of the photographer- whether it be the color, the composition, the subject, the memories the image brings back, or, or, or . . . . or the story it tells. I expect that if you have 100 photographers with 100 images, you may have 100 reasons why those people made those images.

A good and interesting discussion, though.

Zen:D






But no matter the reason, it is ultimately, what pleases the photographer

As always I think it's important to recognize that photographs are taken for a multitude of reasons. Personally, I have taken photos for many different varied ones: ranging from the purely mundane to serious attempts at artistic expression. Some photos were to evoke a memory that is precious to me, but with no obvious value to another viewer; and I have taken technical photographs of pieces of computer hardware that don't have any purpose other than to audit or document a computer installation. I guess one could argue that the story the latter tells is what was installed but they certainly have no artistic merit or higher purpose per se.

I think this hearkens back to an issue that photography has had since its development - back in the day photography was attacked by some members of the conventional artistic establishment as a purely mechanical process that had no soul. This was reinforced by the look of Daguerreotype, being highly details and initially printed on metal. It was further reinforced by the fact that the majority of practitioners were scientists or technical in their bent - a rather inevitable result of the difficult technical requirements of the equipment. This evoked a reaction among some photographers to see the captured image as something higher - to seek meaning in the captured image and elevate it to an art. It is a theme that has lived, on more or less, since then. Yet, as a purpose, to capture an image for purely documentation purposes is valid and it exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manfred M

Let me throw a different perspective from one who judges photo competitions at a local, regional and national level...

... I hear comments like those as well and they bother me as well, just as comments on using specific rules of composition (which are often little more than someone trying to quantify photographic practices), shifting shooting position (there is no way for the judge to know if that was even possible).

---

I totally agree with Manfred on the comments made, especially about context.

In one case it was about shooting position. A good friend of mine made a stunning image of a bison that was being judged. The image was marked down with the comment that the photograph should have been taken about 30m to the right. Leaving aside the fact that bison are big, easily spooked and prone to stampeding or charging, if the judge had taken time to inquire, she would have realized that the photographer would have fallen over a cliff in the process of getting to the perfect shooting position she wanted. Poor judging has frankly left me cold to competitions - I often find that beyond some basic considerations (as outlined by Manfred for example) it comes down to a matter of opinion - and like any decision a preference is coloured by our emotions and biases.

Another example is the comment "If you can't fill the frame, don't take the image". This was made to someone recently in my presence and they were so crushed by this that they seriously considered giving the whole thing in.

I have spent some time studying the history of photography and there seems to be some relevant material here that might offer some context to the "fill the frame" principle.

The earliest cameras had several challenges including (but not limited to), poor optics and heavy, unwieldy equipment. This often meant that the photographer could not fill the frame on many occasions because of terrain, distance to a subject etc. The advantage that they did have was large format cameras, so they could crop (and they did) to get a reasonably tight image. This was in the age before Kodak came along with the first cameras that democratized photography - an endeavour hitherto limited to those with the education, time and financial resources to take photographic images with complex gear and often dangerous chemistry.

Cropping by serious and professional photographers has continued throughout by renowned photographers such as Man Ray and Lee Miller. Ray often shot wide and cropped as part of his creative process, and in their collaboration Ray and Miller created some stunning images from crops. Today such revered photographers as Elliott Erwitt have cropped heavily - the famous image of the small dog with a woman's legs to the right was from an original that was massively cropped. See the image in this link:
https://www.sbs.com.au/sites/sbs.com.au.home/files/styles/body_image/public/dog_crop.jpg?itok=agDPeGJs&mtime=1471455826

Kodak's cameras brought photography to the masses, initially by allowing a rising middle class to purchase and shoot images at a relatively modest cost and with no formal training required. Still, the negatives were small and optics were not great, so getting the biggest image of the subject in the frame was critical. It was here that the principle of "fill the frame" became established. It was a simple mantra for those without technical knowledge or education.

The "purity" of the un-cropped image was enhanced by elites such as the f64 Group who wanted images so carefully composed that they needed no cropping, which was fine if they were shooting static images like landscapes but not so much for moving subjects. Suddenly the principle was elevated from a pragmatic advisory for the unskilled using scratch gear, to a mantra for high art imagery.

For myself, taking images to provide to corporations including marketing companies, filling the image was not necessarily a good thing. I would be briefed on how the photo would be used - e.g. with wording on the top-right quadrant, so I would compose appropriately. My point is there is no one right answer...

There is a wide range of subjects out there and some will never be photographed "up close" - astronomical images are a case in point and filling the frame with an apex predator is not wise unless under very controlled conditions.

I DO think there is a valid place for competition and judging (make no mistake about that) but too much emphasis on being judged can be intimidating for many new members of photographic societies.

In Auckland I had a debate with a couple of photographers I know who were bemoaning the lack of new blood coming to their club. I knew that every 2nd meeting was a judged competition, and I maintained that the pressure for members of their club to enter competitions was putting off some of their members or potential members. I actually visited a couple of times and sure enough I was told that the entries were from a consistent pool and that there was proportion of people who were "not prepared to get involved or learn" by entering. Frankly my response was that attitude was what was holding their numbers back...

We can all learn by presenting our work for positive critical review, but pressing people to be judged takes away a critical element of photography, especially for new people - the joy of the captured image for whatever reason.

I hold my Canadian club in Victoria as an example of inclusiveness: each month they hold 3 meetings. The first is competition, the second is a presentation by an invited guest on some aspect of photography and the third is members' night - when, over about 10 minutes, one can present a series of images, with commentary or music etc. to show what they enjoyed photographing. Subjects ranged from a trip to some place, to personal stories and achievements.

What this session did was to allow people to express themselves through their photos without being judged, critiqued or rated and it was the most popular meeting of the month. As an aside members learned how to create photo shows, sometimes at a very sophisticated level with music, effects etc. - which is, in itself, a valid skill to develop.

Not ong ago, I attended a workshop led by Ben Hall, a UK award winning wildlife photographer https://www.benhallphotography.com/portfolio

Of course, in some of his images the wildlife subject filled the frame. What surprised and impressed me was how he could use the environment to create a stunning image where the wildlife was physically small in the frame, but which made the whole photograph work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidedric

Not ong ago, I attended a workshop led by Ben Hall, a UK award winning wildlife photographer https://www.benhallphotography.com/portfolio

Of course, in some of his images the wildlife subject filled the frame. What surprised and impressed me was how he could use the environment to create a stunning image where the wildlife was physically small in the frame, but which made the whole photograph work.

---

I would argue that some of those shots are not wildlife / bird shots per se, but rather landscapes that he uses the wildlife / bird as an anchor to draw in the viewer. This is a common technique used by landscape and urban landscape photographers where a human or a pet are used for the same purpose. His use of negative space is just a strong compositional technique; sometimes it works, sometimes is looks less effective to me.

Others are more traditional bird / wildlife shots and others are non-traditional ones (the silhouettes, for example).

Trev - I know the Victoria Club by reputation, and is has a good one, from an organizational and program standpoint. I understand that they have the same issue as a great many other clubs in that they are largely made up of retirees. Unfortunately, younger people tend to be tied up with jobs and families, so the number of members who are under the age of 50 is quite small.

Most Canadian photo clubs have dropping memberships. There was a spike in people joining around a decade ago, when people made the switch from film to digital, but as they got to be "good enough", they left the clubs.

I also understand that a lot of clubs are getting out of competitions for very much the reasons you have given. They have been replaced by "assignments", that have all the trappings of a competition but without the critiques that are part of the competition process. I'm a member of two clubs; one is a competitive club and the other is non-competitive. I can definitively say that the members of the competitive club produce higher quality images than the non-competitive one. On the flip side, there are no "cliques" in the non-competitive club, so the "politics" are more restrained.

The typical demographics result in a group tends to be a bit on the conservative side and has trouble accepting avant-garde or works that pushes the boundaries. This also leads to frustration with long time members as they are not progressing in their club rankings. Having a technically perfect, well assembled (composition) will only get the photographer so far; the difference between a good image and a great image is the emotional impact it has on the viewer. Without that "wow" factor, their images will get good, but not great scores.

The other photo club I belong to has a program similar to what you describe with the VCC; six competitions per year (plus a special B&W print and a joint inter-club one with four of the other competitive photo clubs in the area), speakers or special members presentation for the other three or four weeks every month. There are weekly meetings from early September through mid-May and monthly meetings over the summer months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manfred M

Trev - I know the Victoria Club by reputation, and is has a good one, from an organizational and program standpoint. I understand that they have the same issue as a great many other clubs in that they are largely made up of retirees. Unfortunately, younger people tend to be tied up with jobs and families, so the number of members who are under the age of 50 is quite small.

---

Absolutely Victoria has been on a road to attract younger photographers. The problem for the club is that Victoria is the retirement capital of Canada :) with a disproportionally older population. That said, the meetings I have experienced are all well attended and last time I was there we did have some new blood coming to the fore.

In NZ - specifically in Auckland, clubs here assign a full 50% of their time to competition and there seems to be an expectation that members NEED to participate and I think that is a lot of pressure on new people. I must say that I was not incredibly impressed with the judging I saw. They are the ones that say they are struggling for participants, yet the population here has a massive young proportion, with many academic institutions swelling the numbers of young people and yet their membership is on a downhill slide, as they continue to do what they have always done, in the way they have always done it, expecting a different result from a changing culture.

I co-manage a meetup group in Auckland. Our events are dominated by assignments: We meet after work, chat for a few minutes, then go out for an hour to shoot on the assigned topic, and return for a beverage and a chat before heading home. Members are encourage to post and comment on images from each event. We do this weekly while the light allows and will go to every 2nd week in the darker months, when we will hold events at other times and have presentations. We have also held field trips to wildlife areas, volcanic zones and other places of interest in weekend events. We are holding a meetup to visit the Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibition this weekend and having lunch afterwards.

I think there is somewhat of a hard line between enthusiast and casual photographer. For me it is a sliding scale and I see that in the outlook of the participants in my meetup group. For many people, with busy lives, the commitment varies as well.

Trev - after deciding to join a club after decades of boycotting then since my university days, I looked at 5 local clubs.

1. Club 1 - Setup much like Victoria Club; 6 competitions a year and a lot of interesting guest speakers, education program, special interest groups, critiquing group, a full studio, etc. The most expensive club in town too, almost twice as much in cost over the next most expensive club. Weekly meetings from early September to mid-May;

2. Club 2 - Also a weekly club that runs 9 months a year. Bi-weekly competitions and members showing their works or giving presentations on the other nights. An occasional guest speaker. It's the oldest club in town having just celebrated its 75th birthday. Also one Yousef Karsh was an active member before he became a world renowned photographer.

3. Club 3 - Monthly meetings from September to May. Two competitions per year with speakers and other events. Speakers are often members of Club 1.

4. Club 4 - Monthly meetings, but as they are on the other side of the Ottawa River in Quebec, everything is done in French, so not good for my marginal French. They have 5 or 6 competitions per year.

5. Club 5 - Monthly meetings from September to June. Non-competitive club with monthly assignments as well as two special assignments (one summer and one winter). External and internal speakers. Lowest quality images of all the clubs. I joined this one too because they are made up entirely of retirees and hold their meetings during the morning.

In terms of image quality / knowledgeable resources Club 1 and Club 2 are very close and Club 3 and Club 4 are just slightly behind. Definitely the gray haired set and I think that the Quebec based club might be the youngest by a hair.

I ended up joining Club 1 three years ago and Club 5 (about a 20 minute walk from my house - the key reason for joining that club).

When it comes to judges, there are about a dozen "qualified" judges in the area. There are perhaps another 6 or so that I feel do a good job, even though they have not gone through a formal training and certification process. The rest of the pool are locally well known photographers that can be hit and miss, depending on the topic that they are judging. Being a well known local photographer does not mean one has either the analytical skills or the ability to articulate one's views in a way that is meaningful to the photographer whose work is being evaluated. It is fairly standard practice to have a panel of three judges per competition.

I found that over the past three years, I've ended up judging about 4 competitions per year (two local, one regional and one national this year; a mix of prints and digital); I'm judging a local juried competition tomorrow (with the results presentation next week) and doing the national competition next month.

I'm also involved in a local photographic meetup group and help manage some of the events. I have only been at one meetup event over the past year, mostly for personal reasons.

That is very interesting for me for a couple of reasons:
1. The choice you had in clubs is very impressive! :) I wish I had that kind of choice here. Within 10km of where I live in Auckland there are 3 photographic societies, all affiliated to the Photographic Society of NZ. Getting to the furthest would entail a round trip of about 90 minutes on a good day (Auckland traffic is horrendous) and that would be too disruptive for my family.

2. I actually live about 1km from the local photographic society (http://www.hendersonphoto.org.nz/) and visited it a couple of times really wanting to join it, but that was the one that was holding competition for 50% of its 20 annual events, and the one I was less than impressed with the judging. Don't get me wrong, they are a prestigious club with some amazing photographers, but I find them rather elitist and my interest is in engaging the newbies and ones with little confidence to get to the stage of being comfortable to be judged. Furthermore, its events clash with the meetup group I co-manage and I would have to give up my commitment to support the group if I was to go to that club's evenings.

Still, there is light at the end of the tunnel... having just made the search to respond to your post I found that one group that is not incredibly close but enough to brave the traffic and they have made a decision to change their focus from competitions to activities and education. Their events don't seem to clash with my own, so I shall go and check them out!

I don't see the two sets of activities as competitive - rather they are complementary and serve two different 'churches' within the wide photographic community.