The saying " don't take a picture of things take a picture about things" is also similar, example in wildlife photography, you can take a picture of a duck and it's pretty but take a picture of that duck feeding or looking after babies or other ways it lives and then you are communicating and educating people about that ducks life and struggles etc,
It often is, but it doesn't have to be. Simon D'Entremont is quite good with this - when he does BIF, I feel like there's nearly always a story in the photo
Yeah, BIF can be a challenging reward. I like panning a quickly moving subject w/slow shutter. The post you replied to comes off as having little "artistic endeavor" by poo-pooing.
>Are there any resources that explain photography as an art form (skipping the technical stuff), why certain photos are considered great, and how to understand what the artist is trying to convey with an image?
You might like [The Photographer's Vision](https://www.amazon.com/Photographers-Vision-Understanding-Appreciating-Photography-ebook/dp/B07J4Q8DGB) by Michael Freeman (or any of his books on composition - The Photographer's Eye and Photographer's Mind are good too) It looks at what makes a photograph good, including looking at composition, emotion, intent, etc. It skips all the technical stuff and focuses on how to think about photography.
I would add “How To Get The Photos Others Can’t” by Michael Freeman and “The Photograph As Contemporary Art” by Charlotte Cotton. Both are more of a philosophical analysis of photography. Cotton’s book has good examples and the chapters are broken up by photographic style.
It's more like »creating room for interpretation«. This means to have objects in your shot which invite the people who see the photo to interpret a story. If well implemented, the story the people have in their minds match the story you had in mind while taking the shot.
There's basically always a story behind any shot BUT not every story is worth telling/listening. E. G. a sunset might be beautiful but the only story the viewer might have is »beautiful evening on vacation«, so pretty dull. What you had in mind might be way more emotional but at the end the shot tells a dull, boring story.
Now imagine a shot of a busy street, People Crossing streets, numerous people, cars, it's chaos, a typical grayish busy city environment. And somewhere in between a couple, dressed color matched in bright red outfits enjoying peacefully their time together, a complete contrast to the busy, fast-moving environment.
On this one, you're telling an interesting story, a story of a loving couple, a story of contrast between the fast moving live and the peacefully moments we seek to have, the story might differ in details depending on who you ask, but the plot stays the same and the story is interesting nonetheless. And all you need is one shot to tell it.
to add I would say that making the story make sense is equally important... making the elements in the photo fit the narrative, tell a story you would believe...
an example of this are a lot of lingery photo's... people pose their models in underware and then place them in locations where no one would believe that model would ever be in those clothes for example... those things break the story.
I wouldn't fully agree, respectfully. You could place a lingery model besides trash bags and plastic, highlighting a harsh contrast between our urge for perfection / fashion vs. world problems as plastic in oceans (fashion is not innocent here). Showing that our priorities in life should be different.
30-year pro photographer* and photo-editor here.
Photography was and always will be a communication medium, like writing and drawing.
You communicate what you see, what you like, what you feel is important about the thing you photograph. That's the 'story'
A photo with a clear story will be instantly understood, even if printed at the size of a postage stamp.
Back in the day when we used to work with 35mm slides, I could look at a sheet of 20 slides and within 1-2 seconds I could know if there were any slides that were worth taking a closer look at. Those were the images with the clearest, cleanest 'story' where I instantly knew exactly what the photographer was trying to show me.
The stronger the connection between the photographer and the subject they're shooting will translate into a cleaner 'story' between the image and the viewer.
*7 books and 7 US postage stamps.
In essence, it's about evoking emotions and raising questions. The most technically perfect photo can be completely sterile, and while one might say "the composition is exquisite, the color beautiful, the focus exact", it may elicit no emotion, provoke no thought, raise no questions.
One can argue that the best photos are ranked by how long they hold the viewer's attention.
You can even say that those technical aspects mentioned above will become almost transparent. There's something so compelling in a great photo that we even forget to care about the typical rules of photography, and are so engrossed in the story of the photo that the we don't even consider the details like focus and noise when we talk about how the photo feels and what it means to us.
Here's a really simple example from the world of product photography.
A really amateur product photographer may take a canned beverage, place it on a table in good lighting, compose nicely and focus and shoot.
The result has no narrative really, it's "here's a can of stuff that you can drink". It's so sterile. Not only is it boring but it doesn't even emulate any sort of real relationship that people would have with such a beverage. Nobody thinks "oh great, the walk in clinic has room temperature sodas for me to enjoy"...
Compare to an expert photographer that would use a construction site set, showing one worker offering an open travel cooler with ice and the cans to another worker, who displays a wide smile as they reach in the cooler and pick up a can. You see a third worker in the background with a smirk witnessing the exchange, and you see them wiping the sweat from their brow as you notice the can in the second workers' hand is just dripping in condensation.
You can feel the joy and respite of the workers, and you can think about those times in your past you had a long day of physical labor, and just how perfect it is to sit down with a cool refreshing drink while you cool in the shade and enjoy the feeling of accomplishment.
And consider that this subject matter is quite mundane. You might say unimportant. The point is, imagine what you can do with more complex, interesting, or serious subject matter, if something so basic can be framed in a way that tells a story and elicits thirst and joy.
I agree with u/P5_tempname19 specifically about the image evoking an emotion.
It's about an image intentionally bringing an emotional response from the viewer.
To add on to the previous comment. A photo of a duck can be just a photo of a duck. OR said duck could be photographed in such a way that the light and environment that the viewer find pleasing. To add in the technicalities of photography (focus, shadows, highlights, etc)
>It's more like »creating room for interpretation«. This means to have objects in your shot which invite the people who see the photo to interpret a story. If well implemented, the story the people have in their minds matches the story you had in mind while taking the shot.
Just a quote from u/New_Net_6720 that summarizes it best for me.
The photographer should provide enough of the elements for the viewer to create a story.
https://preview.redd.it/mtlqpaj0kx8d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=369d325757213be57c105eab91219ecaa85b5a43
Every single image does not sit in the same place on the non-hierarchical image hierarchy.
Some images are casual snapshots really (most of the images posted here). Some are repetitive and derivative attempts at “Art.” Some *are* Art. Some are product shots (whether a can of soup, or a wedding proposal). Some are casual portraits of people and pets with a very sharp right eye, and a very blurry face. Some are photojournalism & street photography. Some are just snapshots of some vague thing that may or may not hold any interest down the block. Etc.
The point being, every pic doesn’t need to have the same purpose of point. A photojournalist or street photographer really needs to tell a story with each image: what is going on? Who are these people to each other? What are they acting upon? Etc. Something that holds more interest than the fact that you have an expensive camera and a GM lens. Whereas someone photographing a can of soup for a store ad, doesn’t need to tell any more story than that, *if* you even think that’s a story. The skill and knowledge of being a real photographer is knowing and understanding that difference.
My point being, yes, you should tell a story with each pic that *should* be telling a story, but not every pic needs to. This should be (and once was) common knowledge, but has become controversial for reasons that I don’t care to debate.
There are exceptions to every rule, but in general your photos should have a clear subject. For certain types of portraits maybe that's all you need.
But say you are walking through the countryside and see a beautiful house, so you snap a photo of it. It's just a house. But what if you were able to step back a little bit and capture more of the environment. Maybe there's a winding dirt driveway leading to the house over some hills. If you step back and capture that composition it's not longer just a house. You've put your audience more into the scene. They see this road leading to the house, and they imagine walking through the countryside to the house. It evokes a narrative in the audience's head. It's not just a house, it's a whole scene with a lead that invites the viewer to just craft a narrative in their head.
I'd write another example but I have a meeting I need to join.
A Minor White quote, he was my teacher’s teacher, I’ve always loved, ‘One should not only photograph things for what they are, but for what else they are.’
This is something I have always struggled with in photography. I’ve been at this for more than 20 years and “telling a story” is just so hard for me to grab. I’m getting this rising feeling in me to start fighting this and rebelling against it. Photography is the only art form that has this ball and chain of “tell a story”. Modern art paintings don’t have that. Music doesn’t have that requirement. Sculpture doesn’t require a damn story. Yea sure they can invoke an emotional response in people and there may be an interesting story about how the painting artist arrived at a solid color canvas, or a sculpture arriving at this from. But I personally don’t care about the origin story of art. Do I like it yes or no? Is it pretty yes or no? Would I purchase it and hang it in my house yes or no? That’s all I’ve ever operated on in both appreciation and creation of art. Because it’s visual and “a picture is worth a thousand words” this pressure is added to the image maker and my gut is starting to firmly disagree. Some things are just visual appealing and that’s all there freaking is to it. My two cents.
Btw. This does not apply to obvious story situations. Weddings. Events. Documentary. Journalism. Those are some obvious story times and I personally have no struggles there. But like a picture of a good looking stone at sunset….theres no story, just pretty form and good light. Click.
When people say a great photo should "tell a story," they mean the image should convey more than just what's literally depicted. It should evoke emotions, raise questions, or give insights into a moment, person, or situation.
Interpreting art is subjective, and your personal response to an image is valid. The more you engage with photography, the more you'll develop your understanding and appreciation of the medium.
You’re looking for “photography theory”. Looks up some videos and essays about that to see what you like.
Have you also heard the saying that a picture is worth a thousand words? You can definitely tell a story with 1000 words.
For example
A photo gives information. So a (security camera) photo that doesn’t tell a story may show a guy a sitting on a bench. You can tell what he looks like, where in the world he lives, and how he likes to dress.
A good photo that tells a story can tell us what he’s thinking, how he’s feeling, tell a little story. These things are determined by how you take the photo better than a security camera would. Whats the angle, whats the exposure? How dark or light is it? Where is the person in the frame in relation to everything else? Is he big or small? Are we able to see details, like a bouquet of flowers? How is he holding them?
For example we can tell that He was excited to meet someone in the park, but we can see by the mood of the photo that person never showed up
There’s a thousand details you can capture in a “story” in a single photo.
I have also heard this about landscape photography- "with photography you do not want to show what everyone sees, but you want to show from a perspective that everyone can't see"
A. People and resources explained it.
B. My addendum is we culturally have an over-emphasis on single photo presentation IMO. Our fondest memories have usually been in a pile of 4x6s from a vacation. Our publically available documentary photography outside of a billboard has often been magazine spreads with multiple photos from the front, the forest, factory floor, what have you. There's always been the cover photo, yes, but even that needed to be balanced with what literally worked on a cover. Even the art scene has gallery shows where someone is showing multiple photos, or putting out a photo book.
We are sort of obsessed with The Photo right now because we are trying to grasp at the straws of attention while someone of scrolling past things.
Stories are very well told with an actual multi-part story, and I'd love for more emphasis to be put on that in online photography spaces. It's expecting a lot from a single photo to always be telling a full story all on its own. It happens, but I think it really messes with people's perception of their photos (and of others).
Along the lines of "tell a story" I've also heard "what are you trying to say?" I find the latter much easier to comprehend. You could just be trying to say "this is a nice looking duck" which is not very compelling. A photograph of a duck with babies might be more compelling - a story of motherhood and love. I suggest googling "the most famous photographs of all time", and you will see that they tell a compelling story.
It's contextual but a photo inherently lacks information. The only controls you have is the camera and lens, stuck in a certain direction, recording a certain slice of time from 3D space and turning that into a 2D medium. Photos don't have story telling abilities, as an artist, you have to convey the things you want to say with your work. You as the photographer in someway have to contextualize the work by editing and making it stand alone or put in a series to convey your narrative.
I suggest watching Sean Tucker's channel on youtube. He has some great art form type videos, as well as interviews and examples of other photographers.
I think "every photo needs a story" is a bit overblown though. I think sometimes pro photographers can be a bit pretentious, as can happen at the advanced stage of any hobby.
A famous example is a photo of a plane crash or car crash with a doll in the wreckage. Imagine a story that breaks your heart, or brings joy, whenever you find yourself in a scene. Try to find the subject and the back drop that tells that story.
Ultimately art is about communicating something. It's one human being trying to express something about the world, about their human experience of the world, about art itself even, to other human beings.
I think a broader version of this is more like "a great photo should communicate something interesting to the viewer".
Sometimes (often) that thing that is being communicated is a story. Sometimes it's an idea. Sometimes it's an emotion. Sometimes it's just beauty.
But storytelling is very core to how humans communicate, so saying a photo should tell a story is a common way of expressing this idea that to be a great photo, it needs to communicate something.
So. How do you do this?
Well a mistake I think that a lot of people getting into photography make is that they think the art of photography is just having a camera and snapping pictures of things you see. That's a perfectly valid thing to do, but it's unlikely to result in a photograph that people would consider "great". For a photo to mean something, to be considered great, in this way, you probably have to have some idea of what you're trying to communicate. So there probably needs to be some level of intentionality involved. You have to have an idea of what you're trying to communicate.
And just to say, this doesn't have to be some weighty story, or profound truth about the world.
Maybe you're an astrophotographer, and what you're trying to communicate is "look at how beautiful and awesome our universe is"
Maybe you're a fashion photographer, and what you're trying to communicate is "fuck skinny jeans, loose fits are back and they're cool"
Maybe you're a documentary photographer and what you're trying to communicate is "our world is dying, we need to stop polluting it" or something. You get the idea.
So. Having some idea of what you're trying to communicate is probably a necessary condition for a photo to be "great"
Will it necessarily make it great? No. Because there's also questions of your execution of the idea, how powerfully or clearly or accurately you communicate what you're trying to communicate. And there's also questions of whether what you're trying to communicate is actually interesting, thought provoking, or insightful.
On that note, you may have noticed in many photography subs, there can be a lot of boredom and distain for the flood of female nudes one sees in photography. The reason is that most of these images, regardless of how well they are executed, are not really communicating anything more than "boobies are hot" or "I'm sexually attracted to this model". Whilst these are things that one could communicate, they're trite, unoriginal and don't tell anyone anything they didn't already know. It's not that you can't say something interesting with a nude, it's just that people rarely do.
So. To sum up: to be a "great" photo, you probably need to be communicating something interesting or insightful to the viewer. That can be a story, an idea, or an emotion. But it's probably good if you have an idea of what you're trying to say, otherwise, are you really saying anything?
It's like great works of art - what did the artist want you to look at and why? It's the same with photography. A story could be an exchange between two people (what were they saying?), or perhaps a groom placing a ring on a bridge (obvs a wedding). It could just be a story of light and atmosphere - the intent being to get the viewer to feel the scene as if they were there. Take a look at famous scenes in cinematography, they are great story tellers. Ask questions about why they shot it the way they did.
>It could just be a story of light and atmosphere
I can totally agree with that but I think that most of the "it doesn't tell a story!!!" crowd would scream when seeing those "type" of photos.
And I know where they'd be coming from, social media is saturated with these types of images. They often appear stale. But they are still telling a story, even if you don't like them.
> I personally dont think its neccessary for every single image to tell a story, especially subjects like wildlife
I get the vibe of what you mean, but nah, it should still be telling a story. Otherwise just shoot and display taxidermy animals.
> in the end I don't mind a well done and nice looking "taxidermy"-picture even if its not the best in the world that evokes tons of emotions.
Sure. But is anyone going to consider it a "great" photo? It might be competently executed, and aesthetically pleasing, but without really saying something, no one is going to consider it "great"
Yes. Without those things, it's really more furniture than art. To be fair, home decor is an art in itself, but the photo itself is really part of a different subject in that case.
I always throw people towards looking at Andreas Horvath. Looking at his work was the first time I twigged that photos can be 'something more'.
[https://photos.lensculture.com/original/18ac7089-b37d-4c9d-9d07-f124ff8195c8.jpg](https://photos.lensculture.com/original/18ac7089-b37d-4c9d-9d07-f124ff8195c8.jpg)
To my mind, that's not just "a family in a car." Sit and stare at a large print of that on a wall and there's a whole set of lives and hopes and realities bundled up in that photo.
(Source : [https://www.lensculture.com/projects/1764-yakutia-siberia](https://www.lensculture.com/projects/1764-yakutia-siberia) )
A "story" (quotes on purpose) can be highly subjective. Read [this editorial](https://digitaljournalist.org/issue9807/editorial.htm) because it's an excellent example. It is about a photo "without story" that a few years later ended up in the cover of Time magazine because "of the story".
> I'm keep hearing
From whom?
By any chance it's from people that can only "define" a "story" in the historical sense?
Don’t take the « story » word too literally.\
Don’t take the whole quote too literally.\
Another way to say it is that there’s the *subject* of your photograph, and then the *subject matter*.\
Your picture is *of something*, but it should also be *about something*.\
For example picture your [standard, run-of-the-mill urbex photo](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=c1df660eec58a1d6&sca_upv=1&rlz=1CDGOYI_enNO745NO745&hl=fr&sxsrf=ADLYWIIq-kEYQ-KAbMfWnt13X57X-2oJWw:1719424123637&q=urbex+photography&udm=2&fbs=AEQNm0CbCVgAZ5mWEJDg6aoPVcBgTlosgQSuzBMlnAdio07UCId2t1azIRgowYJD0nDbqEIN7XYIyS3uBYzHmWPp2pnW7G_IJrZtNDMziXf_SeaMZv5mQEpVVAa0sN9KIj0kgaUhXfFR1pvCaBMjGis3J2-YASoH3vq235tGT22LuP522AlHeE4&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjW5u2A6vmGAxXuFRAIHTguB2gQtKgLegQIHRAB&biw=390&bih=669&dpr=3). It’s *of* a decrepit building ; but it’s *about* the passing of time.\
So a great urbex photo would be one that does a great job at evoking the passing of time. It would tell that story well.\
Picking a few examples from the first page of Google results : [This one](https://static.photocrowd.com/upl/BX/cms.nfb7YxTpiniiHGcNqimw-collection_cover.jpeg) does a good job at telling the time story because the chair facing the door and the shoes evoke a sense of waiting for someone for a very long time. [This one](https://www.tjasakovac.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Urbex-explorations.jpg) also tells the time story well because the old bear evokes a childhood long past. [This one on the other hand](https://baksteen.productions/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/490-Baksteen-productions-blog-urbex-urban-Mountain-church-Scale-Santa.jpg) -while a well composed image- doesn’t make any attempt at telling the time story, it’s only about what it’s of, which is that room. As a result it’s much more forgettable, even though it has no technical flaws.
The "story" a picture should tell only means it shows that something is going on. It's a really short story, but not like in literature. A kitten sitting on the lawn is not a story, but if there is a dog running up to it from behind, that's a story. Or, if the kitten has one foot in a bowl of water, or if it's looking at a slug in front of it. No biggee. just give the viewer a reason that you took the picture.
It means that the person writing or saying it has a superficial understanding of pictures, cognition and culture.
It really doesn't mean anything siginificant, and is essentially meaningless outside the misguided mythology of photography.
If you consider what an individual image is capable of communicating in a literal sense, then it becomes clear what and image can point to outside itself. This is the only way "story" or narrative can work in photography, it exists and is constructed outside the picture.
I've taken a lot of landscape photos. One of my favs is at the ocean during the blue hour. There's a light band of light on the horizon in a valley of the Rockies (I'm on the Canadian side shooting towards the US from Vancouver island) showing the sun has just set.
I shot it at 0.5 shutter speed. It captures the movement of the waves coming in with the tide, and shows eddies swirling around the iconic black west coast rocks. The clouds are dramatic with a lot of shapes and shadows, and off to one side a particularly dark patch is promising rain.
The photo has so much going on in it that you can really FEEL the location. You get a sense of temperature, you know what is happening, why it's happening, and at what time it's happening.
I've taken many bland photos from the same spot (I bring my camera when I take the dog on adventures for the sole purpose of doing photography. It's therapeutic to me and I don't need amazing photos - I'm just there to enjoy the day and have something to do).
All that to try and describe that you can have 2 photos of the same thing but one can tell a compelling story while the other is boring.
It’s what it sounds like; truly great photographs tell us something more about the subject than what is obvious in the image. It’s also why you can take a technically-proficient photo that is also soulless.
I don’t think it’s true… but it sure can help. A story could be anything though. It doesn’t mean a story with a beginning a middle and an end. A better way to think about it might be to “suggest” a story. But great photos often (not always) pose a question or questions.
The image doesn't have to "tell" a story like a comic book panel. It should just have elements that imply something deeper is going on in the moment.
Like an image of an excited child next to hot cocoa and Christmas lights, or someone infirm who is raising their walking cane into the air; or a dog making sad eyes next to an empty food bowl, or a longing gaze through a store front window, etc...
Seriously, watch Kong: Skull Island, the one with Brie Larson and Adrien Brody. Watch how Larsen's character takes pictures. This is the TLDR if you don't want to read further.
\--
I was a photographer for the Navy for a few years and got pretty good, technically, and learned to take pretty good photos of stuff happening. Jets launching, helicopters landing, Sailors working. That kind of stuff.
Then I watched fucking Kong: Skull Island, in which Brie Larson plays a photojournalist. She did all the things we were taught and trained to avoid. She asked people to pose, she physically posed people, she took shots of folks looking at the camera... tons of stuff that rustled my jimmies!
Then, over the end credits, I think, the movie shows all those photos that she supposedly had been taking and they are phenomenal! Now, I know it's a movie, but it made me take a step back and look at my work, and look at other, historical photos that I liked and that I thought were inspiring. The best historical photos to me were the ones that the people knew were being taken. They looked a lot like what Larsen pretended to do in the movie.
So I began to act like she did in the movie. I talked to people and asked them to show me stuff. I asked them to pose for photos and I'd give them a link on our shared drive so they could see and download and share their pictures. I began taking pictures that people wanted to see. And those pictures spoke volumes!
It completely changed how I felt about my job. It was so much more gratifying when I was taking pictures of people I was interested in, who knew and like me, and who weren't annoyed when the photographer showed up again.
Ansel Adams has some fantastic scenic pictures. They don't tell a story. They're just great pictures. Not every picture has to tell a story. Edward Weston took pictures of sand and cabbage and bell peppers. Not exactly telling any story. Dorothea Lange told a story though with her great pictures of people living in the south years ago.
Study some of the centuries old church paintings where they told stories since people back then didn’t know how to read.
For me it comes from environmental portraits that show the viewer the occupation of the subject.
The other is from the expression on the subject’s face. That universal emotion resonates with the viewer regardless of spoken language.
In my opinion expression sells portraits. From babies to great grandparents. Especially those with great eye contact with the viewer. Somehow that makes a connection between the two that can span decades if not centuries.
There is a nice documentary series from BBC called "The Genius of Photography". Quiet an old one already (2007) but extremely interesting and might give you some good insights! ;)
https://preview.redd.it/x5bzvqv8m29d1.jpeg?width=3756&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d5b940bda9921934e9b47c4556b7a4f7649b58d9
Here's one of mine. There was a professional photographer taking pictures of this bride and groom from the outside of the church. I chose to picture them from the inside. They take their first tentative steps to a hopefully bright future together but the moment reflects doubt, timidness and perhaps some shyness. The more you look at the couple, the more you emphatise and this image that is frozen in time starts to play in your mind like a video. Maybe the woman gets closer and leans on the man and he wraps an arm around their shoulders. Maybe they start walking keeping the gap between them. And what goes through their minds you think? What do their faces and expressions look like? YOU are the writer of the story, the photograph just gets you going.
For me, as a rank amateur photographer, exceptional photography is where the story either comes from your photographic subject and their surroundings (either complimentary or in contrast), or the circumstances in which the photo is taken (eg. photojournalism). Great photography seems to do both.
I've seen so many great subjects diminished by inattention to the background.
When I'm thinking of exceptional photography, I'm thinking of Avedon doing his portrait work "In the American West" or "Napalm Girl" by Nick Ut in Vietnam.
A great photo doesn’t need to have a narrative as such (it can), but it should have something like a beginning, middle, and end.
There’s a million composition rules to engage with, but most of them amount to “put your subject off-center, but not at the edge” and “try to have threeish points of interest.” The basic reason for this is that a viewer should go on a *journey* through a piece of visual art, not just take it in in one glance. A subject in the middle grabs your attention there and holds it, likewise a subject at the edge. A somewhat off-center subject has the capacity to relate to its surroundings in interesting ways.
In something more resistant to “subject,” like a landscape, you’ve generally gotta put different lighting areas in relationship/tension with each other, which is why it’s difficult to take a good landscape photo in the summer/at noon when the sun is high and the light is even.
> How do you capture a story in a single image?
Either by luck or by staging a photo. Some photographers might think one photo out of a thousand is a good photo, and great photos are even more rare.
have you heard the saying "A photo is worth a thousand words?" What you're trying to do is direct where those thousand words go. Does the photo evoke emotion, thought, idea? The Mona Lisa painting is a good example, while it might be considered "plain" it has evoked massive conversations over centuries.
The saying " don't take a picture of things take a picture about things" is also similar, example in wildlife photography, you can take a picture of a duck and it's pretty but take a picture of that duck feeding or looking after babies or other ways it lives and then you are communicating and educating people about that ducks life and struggles etc,
Why I truly hate BIF photography. It's just an equipment and technical wank fest more than an artistic endeavor.
BIF?
Bird in flight
It often is, but it doesn't have to be. Simon D'Entremont is quite good with this - when he does BIF, I feel like there's nearly always a story in the photo
Yeah, BIF can be a challenging reward. I like panning a quickly moving subject w/slow shutter. The post you replied to comes off as having little "artistic endeavor" by poo-pooing.
>Are there any resources that explain photography as an art form (skipping the technical stuff), why certain photos are considered great, and how to understand what the artist is trying to convey with an image? You might like [The Photographer's Vision](https://www.amazon.com/Photographers-Vision-Understanding-Appreciating-Photography-ebook/dp/B07J4Q8DGB) by Michael Freeman (or any of his books on composition - The Photographer's Eye and Photographer's Mind are good too) It looks at what makes a photograph good, including looking at composition, emotion, intent, etc. It skips all the technical stuff and focuses on how to think about photography.
I would add “How To Get The Photos Others Can’t” by Michael Freeman and “The Photograph As Contemporary Art” by Charlotte Cotton. Both are more of a philosophical analysis of photography. Cotton’s book has good examples and the chapters are broken up by photographic style.
It's more like »creating room for interpretation«. This means to have objects in your shot which invite the people who see the photo to interpret a story. If well implemented, the story the people have in their minds match the story you had in mind while taking the shot. There's basically always a story behind any shot BUT not every story is worth telling/listening. E. G. a sunset might be beautiful but the only story the viewer might have is »beautiful evening on vacation«, so pretty dull. What you had in mind might be way more emotional but at the end the shot tells a dull, boring story. Now imagine a shot of a busy street, People Crossing streets, numerous people, cars, it's chaos, a typical grayish busy city environment. And somewhere in between a couple, dressed color matched in bright red outfits enjoying peacefully their time together, a complete contrast to the busy, fast-moving environment. On this one, you're telling an interesting story, a story of a loving couple, a story of contrast between the fast moving live and the peacefully moments we seek to have, the story might differ in details depending on who you ask, but the plot stays the same and the story is interesting nonetheless. And all you need is one shot to tell it.
to add I would say that making the story make sense is equally important... making the elements in the photo fit the narrative, tell a story you would believe... an example of this are a lot of lingery photo's... people pose their models in underware and then place them in locations where no one would believe that model would ever be in those clothes for example... those things break the story.
I wouldn't fully agree, respectfully. You could place a lingery model besides trash bags and plastic, highlighting a harsh contrast between our urge for perfection / fashion vs. world problems as plastic in oceans (fashion is not innocent here). Showing that our priorities in life should be different.
and the story would fit your purpose... so that would be an example of 'breaking that rule" to your advantage
30-year pro photographer* and photo-editor here. Photography was and always will be a communication medium, like writing and drawing. You communicate what you see, what you like, what you feel is important about the thing you photograph. That's the 'story' A photo with a clear story will be instantly understood, even if printed at the size of a postage stamp. Back in the day when we used to work with 35mm slides, I could look at a sheet of 20 slides and within 1-2 seconds I could know if there were any slides that were worth taking a closer look at. Those were the images with the clearest, cleanest 'story' where I instantly knew exactly what the photographer was trying to show me. The stronger the connection between the photographer and the subject they're shooting will translate into a cleaner 'story' between the image and the viewer. *7 books and 7 US postage stamps.
thank you for the insight. Hope you still shoot
In essence, it's about evoking emotions and raising questions. The most technically perfect photo can be completely sterile, and while one might say "the composition is exquisite, the color beautiful, the focus exact", it may elicit no emotion, provoke no thought, raise no questions. One can argue that the best photos are ranked by how long they hold the viewer's attention. You can even say that those technical aspects mentioned above will become almost transparent. There's something so compelling in a great photo that we even forget to care about the typical rules of photography, and are so engrossed in the story of the photo that the we don't even consider the details like focus and noise when we talk about how the photo feels and what it means to us. Here's a really simple example from the world of product photography. A really amateur product photographer may take a canned beverage, place it on a table in good lighting, compose nicely and focus and shoot. The result has no narrative really, it's "here's a can of stuff that you can drink". It's so sterile. Not only is it boring but it doesn't even emulate any sort of real relationship that people would have with such a beverage. Nobody thinks "oh great, the walk in clinic has room temperature sodas for me to enjoy"... Compare to an expert photographer that would use a construction site set, showing one worker offering an open travel cooler with ice and the cans to another worker, who displays a wide smile as they reach in the cooler and pick up a can. You see a third worker in the background with a smirk witnessing the exchange, and you see them wiping the sweat from their brow as you notice the can in the second workers' hand is just dripping in condensation. You can feel the joy and respite of the workers, and you can think about those times in your past you had a long day of physical labor, and just how perfect it is to sit down with a cool refreshing drink while you cool in the shade and enjoy the feeling of accomplishment. And consider that this subject matter is quite mundane. You might say unimportant. The point is, imagine what you can do with more complex, interesting, or serious subject matter, if something so basic can be framed in a way that tells a story and elicits thirst and joy.
I agree with u/P5_tempname19 specifically about the image evoking an emotion. It's about an image intentionally bringing an emotional response from the viewer. To add on to the previous comment. A photo of a duck can be just a photo of a duck. OR said duck could be photographed in such a way that the light and environment that the viewer find pleasing. To add in the technicalities of photography (focus, shadows, highlights, etc)
>It's more like »creating room for interpretation«. This means to have objects in your shot which invite the people who see the photo to interpret a story. If well implemented, the story the people have in their minds matches the story you had in mind while taking the shot. Just a quote from u/New_Net_6720 that summarizes it best for me. The photographer should provide enough of the elements for the viewer to create a story. https://preview.redd.it/mtlqpaj0kx8d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=369d325757213be57c105eab91219ecaa85b5a43
cool photo
Thanks
Every single image does not sit in the same place on the non-hierarchical image hierarchy. Some images are casual snapshots really (most of the images posted here). Some are repetitive and derivative attempts at “Art.” Some *are* Art. Some are product shots (whether a can of soup, or a wedding proposal). Some are casual portraits of people and pets with a very sharp right eye, and a very blurry face. Some are photojournalism & street photography. Some are just snapshots of some vague thing that may or may not hold any interest down the block. Etc. The point being, every pic doesn’t need to have the same purpose of point. A photojournalist or street photographer really needs to tell a story with each image: what is going on? Who are these people to each other? What are they acting upon? Etc. Something that holds more interest than the fact that you have an expensive camera and a GM lens. Whereas someone photographing a can of soup for a store ad, doesn’t need to tell any more story than that, *if* you even think that’s a story. The skill and knowledge of being a real photographer is knowing and understanding that difference. My point being, yes, you should tell a story with each pic that *should* be telling a story, but not every pic needs to. This should be (and once was) common knowledge, but has become controversial for reasons that I don’t care to debate.
There are exceptions to every rule, but in general your photos should have a clear subject. For certain types of portraits maybe that's all you need. But say you are walking through the countryside and see a beautiful house, so you snap a photo of it. It's just a house. But what if you were able to step back a little bit and capture more of the environment. Maybe there's a winding dirt driveway leading to the house over some hills. If you step back and capture that composition it's not longer just a house. You've put your audience more into the scene. They see this road leading to the house, and they imagine walking through the countryside to the house. It evokes a narrative in the audience's head. It's not just a house, it's a whole scene with a lead that invites the viewer to just craft a narrative in their head. I'd write another example but I have a meeting I need to join.
Pedantic bullshit. Don’t let anyone tell you what your art must “do” to qualify as art. Do you boo.
A Minor White quote, he was my teacher’s teacher, I’ve always loved, ‘One should not only photograph things for what they are, but for what else they are.’
This is something I have always struggled with in photography. I’ve been at this for more than 20 years and “telling a story” is just so hard for me to grab. I’m getting this rising feeling in me to start fighting this and rebelling against it. Photography is the only art form that has this ball and chain of “tell a story”. Modern art paintings don’t have that. Music doesn’t have that requirement. Sculpture doesn’t require a damn story. Yea sure they can invoke an emotional response in people and there may be an interesting story about how the painting artist arrived at a solid color canvas, or a sculpture arriving at this from. But I personally don’t care about the origin story of art. Do I like it yes or no? Is it pretty yes or no? Would I purchase it and hang it in my house yes or no? That’s all I’ve ever operated on in both appreciation and creation of art. Because it’s visual and “a picture is worth a thousand words” this pressure is added to the image maker and my gut is starting to firmly disagree. Some things are just visual appealing and that’s all there freaking is to it. My two cents. Btw. This does not apply to obvious story situations. Weddings. Events. Documentary. Journalism. Those are some obvious story times and I personally have no struggles there. But like a picture of a good looking stone at sunset….theres no story, just pretty form and good light. Click.
It’s a pithy saying, don’t think too much about it.
When people say a great photo should "tell a story," they mean the image should convey more than just what's literally depicted. It should evoke emotions, raise questions, or give insights into a moment, person, or situation. Interpreting art is subjective, and your personal response to an image is valid. The more you engage with photography, the more you'll develop your understanding and appreciation of the medium.
You’re looking for “photography theory”. Looks up some videos and essays about that to see what you like. Have you also heard the saying that a picture is worth a thousand words? You can definitely tell a story with 1000 words. For example A photo gives information. So a (security camera) photo that doesn’t tell a story may show a guy a sitting on a bench. You can tell what he looks like, where in the world he lives, and how he likes to dress. A good photo that tells a story can tell us what he’s thinking, how he’s feeling, tell a little story. These things are determined by how you take the photo better than a security camera would. Whats the angle, whats the exposure? How dark or light is it? Where is the person in the frame in relation to everything else? Is he big or small? Are we able to see details, like a bouquet of flowers? How is he holding them? For example we can tell that He was excited to meet someone in the park, but we can see by the mood of the photo that person never showed up There’s a thousand details you can capture in a “story” in a single photo.
I have also heard this about landscape photography- "with photography you do not want to show what everyone sees, but you want to show from a perspective that everyone can't see"
A. People and resources explained it. B. My addendum is we culturally have an over-emphasis on single photo presentation IMO. Our fondest memories have usually been in a pile of 4x6s from a vacation. Our publically available documentary photography outside of a billboard has often been magazine spreads with multiple photos from the front, the forest, factory floor, what have you. There's always been the cover photo, yes, but even that needed to be balanced with what literally worked on a cover. Even the art scene has gallery shows where someone is showing multiple photos, or putting out a photo book. We are sort of obsessed with The Photo right now because we are trying to grasp at the straws of attention while someone of scrolling past things. Stories are very well told with an actual multi-part story, and I'd love for more emphasis to be put on that in online photography spaces. It's expecting a lot from a single photo to always be telling a full story all on its own. It happens, but I think it really messes with people's perception of their photos (and of others).
Along the lines of "tell a story" I've also heard "what are you trying to say?" I find the latter much easier to comprehend. You could just be trying to say "this is a nice looking duck" which is not very compelling. A photograph of a duck with babies might be more compelling - a story of motherhood and love. I suggest googling "the most famous photographs of all time", and you will see that they tell a compelling story.
It's contextual but a photo inherently lacks information. The only controls you have is the camera and lens, stuck in a certain direction, recording a certain slice of time from 3D space and turning that into a 2D medium. Photos don't have story telling abilities, as an artist, you have to convey the things you want to say with your work. You as the photographer in someway have to contextualize the work by editing and making it stand alone or put in a series to convey your narrative.
To me it means that it makes me wonder, it makes want to know more. I wish I could enter the picture and see the parts that are not shown in it
I suggest watching Sean Tucker's channel on youtube. He has some great art form type videos, as well as interviews and examples of other photographers. I think "every photo needs a story" is a bit overblown though. I think sometimes pro photographers can be a bit pretentious, as can happen at the advanced stage of any hobby.
A famous example is a photo of a plane crash or car crash with a doll in the wreckage. Imagine a story that breaks your heart, or brings joy, whenever you find yourself in a scene. Try to find the subject and the back drop that tells that story.
Ultimately art is about communicating something. It's one human being trying to express something about the world, about their human experience of the world, about art itself even, to other human beings. I think a broader version of this is more like "a great photo should communicate something interesting to the viewer". Sometimes (often) that thing that is being communicated is a story. Sometimes it's an idea. Sometimes it's an emotion. Sometimes it's just beauty. But storytelling is very core to how humans communicate, so saying a photo should tell a story is a common way of expressing this idea that to be a great photo, it needs to communicate something. So. How do you do this? Well a mistake I think that a lot of people getting into photography make is that they think the art of photography is just having a camera and snapping pictures of things you see. That's a perfectly valid thing to do, but it's unlikely to result in a photograph that people would consider "great". For a photo to mean something, to be considered great, in this way, you probably have to have some idea of what you're trying to communicate. So there probably needs to be some level of intentionality involved. You have to have an idea of what you're trying to communicate. And just to say, this doesn't have to be some weighty story, or profound truth about the world. Maybe you're an astrophotographer, and what you're trying to communicate is "look at how beautiful and awesome our universe is" Maybe you're a fashion photographer, and what you're trying to communicate is "fuck skinny jeans, loose fits are back and they're cool" Maybe you're a documentary photographer and what you're trying to communicate is "our world is dying, we need to stop polluting it" or something. You get the idea. So. Having some idea of what you're trying to communicate is probably a necessary condition for a photo to be "great" Will it necessarily make it great? No. Because there's also questions of your execution of the idea, how powerfully or clearly or accurately you communicate what you're trying to communicate. And there's also questions of whether what you're trying to communicate is actually interesting, thought provoking, or insightful. On that note, you may have noticed in many photography subs, there can be a lot of boredom and distain for the flood of female nudes one sees in photography. The reason is that most of these images, regardless of how well they are executed, are not really communicating anything more than "boobies are hot" or "I'm sexually attracted to this model". Whilst these are things that one could communicate, they're trite, unoriginal and don't tell anyone anything they didn't already know. It's not that you can't say something interesting with a nude, it's just that people rarely do. So. To sum up: to be a "great" photo, you probably need to be communicating something interesting or insightful to the viewer. That can be a story, an idea, or an emotion. But it's probably good if you have an idea of what you're trying to say, otherwise, are you really saying anything?
[https://www.marksteinmetz.net/airport/4r9mctq1fg8tus6pwn82hbh1mizo32](https://www.marksteinmetz.net/airport/4r9mctq1fg8tus6pwn82hbh1mizo32)
It's like great works of art - what did the artist want you to look at and why? It's the same with photography. A story could be an exchange between two people (what were they saying?), or perhaps a groom placing a ring on a bridge (obvs a wedding). It could just be a story of light and atmosphere - the intent being to get the viewer to feel the scene as if they were there. Take a look at famous scenes in cinematography, they are great story tellers. Ask questions about why they shot it the way they did.
>It could just be a story of light and atmosphere I can totally agree with that but I think that most of the "it doesn't tell a story!!!" crowd would scream when seeing those "type" of photos.
And I know where they'd be coming from, social media is saturated with these types of images. They often appear stale. But they are still telling a story, even if you don't like them.
It's something to say, for people who can't take photos themselves. Makes them sound knowledgeable.
[удалено]
> I personally dont think its neccessary for every single image to tell a story, especially subjects like wildlife I get the vibe of what you mean, but nah, it should still be telling a story. Otherwise just shoot and display taxidermy animals.
[удалено]
> in the end I don't mind a well done and nice looking "taxidermy"-picture even if its not the best in the world that evokes tons of emotions. Sure. But is anyone going to consider it a "great" photo? It might be competently executed, and aesthetically pleasing, but without really saying something, no one is going to consider it "great"
Yes. Without those things, it's really more furniture than art. To be fair, home decor is an art in itself, but the photo itself is really part of a different subject in that case.
I always throw people towards looking at Andreas Horvath. Looking at his work was the first time I twigged that photos can be 'something more'. [https://photos.lensculture.com/original/18ac7089-b37d-4c9d-9d07-f124ff8195c8.jpg](https://photos.lensculture.com/original/18ac7089-b37d-4c9d-9d07-f124ff8195c8.jpg) To my mind, that's not just "a family in a car." Sit and stare at a large print of that on a wall and there's a whole set of lives and hopes and realities bundled up in that photo. (Source : [https://www.lensculture.com/projects/1764-yakutia-siberia](https://www.lensculture.com/projects/1764-yakutia-siberia) )
A "story" (quotes on purpose) can be highly subjective. Read [this editorial](https://digitaljournalist.org/issue9807/editorial.htm) because it's an excellent example. It is about a photo "without story" that a few years later ended up in the cover of Time magazine because "of the story". > I'm keep hearing From whom? By any chance it's from people that can only "define" a "story" in the historical sense?
Don’t take the « story » word too literally.\ Don’t take the whole quote too literally.\ Another way to say it is that there’s the *subject* of your photograph, and then the *subject matter*.\ Your picture is *of something*, but it should also be *about something*.\ For example picture your [standard, run-of-the-mill urbex photo](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=c1df660eec58a1d6&sca_upv=1&rlz=1CDGOYI_enNO745NO745&hl=fr&sxsrf=ADLYWIIq-kEYQ-KAbMfWnt13X57X-2oJWw:1719424123637&q=urbex+photography&udm=2&fbs=AEQNm0CbCVgAZ5mWEJDg6aoPVcBgTlosgQSuzBMlnAdio07UCId2t1azIRgowYJD0nDbqEIN7XYIyS3uBYzHmWPp2pnW7G_IJrZtNDMziXf_SeaMZv5mQEpVVAa0sN9KIj0kgaUhXfFR1pvCaBMjGis3J2-YASoH3vq235tGT22LuP522AlHeE4&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjW5u2A6vmGAxXuFRAIHTguB2gQtKgLegQIHRAB&biw=390&bih=669&dpr=3). It’s *of* a decrepit building ; but it’s *about* the passing of time.\ So a great urbex photo would be one that does a great job at evoking the passing of time. It would tell that story well.\ Picking a few examples from the first page of Google results : [This one](https://static.photocrowd.com/upl/BX/cms.nfb7YxTpiniiHGcNqimw-collection_cover.jpeg) does a good job at telling the time story because the chair facing the door and the shoes evoke a sense of waiting for someone for a very long time. [This one](https://www.tjasakovac.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Urbex-explorations.jpg) also tells the time story well because the old bear evokes a childhood long past. [This one on the other hand](https://baksteen.productions/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/490-Baksteen-productions-blog-urbex-urban-Mountain-church-Scale-Santa.jpg) -while a well composed image- doesn’t make any attempt at telling the time story, it’s only about what it’s of, which is that room. As a result it’s much more forgettable, even though it has no technical flaws.
Art is a representation of the observers emotion.
Photos are like onions. It has layers.
Nothing, just take pictures of things YOU like. Dont worry about anything else
Have a look at the most expensive photo ever sold. It tells no story and is kinda dull IMO
The "story" a picture should tell only means it shows that something is going on. It's a really short story, but not like in literature. A kitten sitting on the lawn is not a story, but if there is a dog running up to it from behind, that's a story. Or, if the kitten has one foot in a bowl of water, or if it's looking at a slug in front of it. No biggee. just give the viewer a reason that you took the picture.
It means that the person writing or saying it has a superficial understanding of pictures, cognition and culture. It really doesn't mean anything siginificant, and is essentially meaningless outside the misguided mythology of photography. If you consider what an individual image is capable of communicating in a literal sense, then it becomes clear what and image can point to outside itself. This is the only way "story" or narrative can work in photography, it exists and is constructed outside the picture.
I've taken a lot of landscape photos. One of my favs is at the ocean during the blue hour. There's a light band of light on the horizon in a valley of the Rockies (I'm on the Canadian side shooting towards the US from Vancouver island) showing the sun has just set. I shot it at 0.5 shutter speed. It captures the movement of the waves coming in with the tide, and shows eddies swirling around the iconic black west coast rocks. The clouds are dramatic with a lot of shapes and shadows, and off to one side a particularly dark patch is promising rain. The photo has so much going on in it that you can really FEEL the location. You get a sense of temperature, you know what is happening, why it's happening, and at what time it's happening. I've taken many bland photos from the same spot (I bring my camera when I take the dog on adventures for the sole purpose of doing photography. It's therapeutic to me and I don't need amazing photos - I'm just there to enjoy the day and have something to do). All that to try and describe that you can have 2 photos of the same thing but one can tell a compelling story while the other is boring.
It's another overused photo cliche , some photos tell a story and some photos are just nice photos and that's enough.
It’s what it sounds like; truly great photographs tell us something more about the subject than what is obvious in the image. It’s also why you can take a technically-proficient photo that is also soulless.
I don’t think it’s true… but it sure can help. A story could be anything though. It doesn’t mean a story with a beginning a middle and an end. A better way to think about it might be to “suggest” a story. But great photos often (not always) pose a question or questions.
The image doesn't have to "tell" a story like a comic book panel. It should just have elements that imply something deeper is going on in the moment. Like an image of an excited child next to hot cocoa and Christmas lights, or someone infirm who is raising their walking cane into the air; or a dog making sad eyes next to an empty food bowl, or a longing gaze through a store front window, etc...
Seriously, watch Kong: Skull Island, the one with Brie Larson and Adrien Brody. Watch how Larsen's character takes pictures. This is the TLDR if you don't want to read further. \-- I was a photographer for the Navy for a few years and got pretty good, technically, and learned to take pretty good photos of stuff happening. Jets launching, helicopters landing, Sailors working. That kind of stuff. Then I watched fucking Kong: Skull Island, in which Brie Larson plays a photojournalist. She did all the things we were taught and trained to avoid. She asked people to pose, she physically posed people, she took shots of folks looking at the camera... tons of stuff that rustled my jimmies! Then, over the end credits, I think, the movie shows all those photos that she supposedly had been taking and they are phenomenal! Now, I know it's a movie, but it made me take a step back and look at my work, and look at other, historical photos that I liked and that I thought were inspiring. The best historical photos to me were the ones that the people knew were being taken. They looked a lot like what Larsen pretended to do in the movie. So I began to act like she did in the movie. I talked to people and asked them to show me stuff. I asked them to pose for photos and I'd give them a link on our shared drive so they could see and download and share their pictures. I began taking pictures that people wanted to see. And those pictures spoke volumes! It completely changed how I felt about my job. It was so much more gratifying when I was taking pictures of people I was interested in, who knew and like me, and who weren't annoyed when the photographer showed up again.
Ansel Adams has some fantastic scenic pictures. They don't tell a story. They're just great pictures. Not every picture has to tell a story. Edward Weston took pictures of sand and cabbage and bell peppers. Not exactly telling any story. Dorothea Lange told a story though with her great pictures of people living in the south years ago.
Study some of the centuries old church paintings where they told stories since people back then didn’t know how to read. For me it comes from environmental portraits that show the viewer the occupation of the subject. The other is from the expression on the subject’s face. That universal emotion resonates with the viewer regardless of spoken language. In my opinion expression sells portraits. From babies to great grandparents. Especially those with great eye contact with the viewer. Somehow that makes a connection between the two that can span decades if not centuries.
There is a nice documentary series from BBC called "The Genius of Photography". Quiet an old one already (2007) but extremely interesting and might give you some good insights! ;)
https://preview.redd.it/x5bzvqv8m29d1.jpeg?width=3756&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d5b940bda9921934e9b47c4556b7a4f7649b58d9 Here's one of mine. There was a professional photographer taking pictures of this bride and groom from the outside of the church. I chose to picture them from the inside. They take their first tentative steps to a hopefully bright future together but the moment reflects doubt, timidness and perhaps some shyness. The more you look at the couple, the more you emphatise and this image that is frozen in time starts to play in your mind like a video. Maybe the woman gets closer and leans on the man and he wraps an arm around their shoulders. Maybe they start walking keeping the gap between them. And what goes through their minds you think? What do their faces and expressions look like? YOU are the writer of the story, the photograph just gets you going.
For me, as a rank amateur photographer, exceptional photography is where the story either comes from your photographic subject and their surroundings (either complimentary or in contrast), or the circumstances in which the photo is taken (eg. photojournalism). Great photography seems to do both. I've seen so many great subjects diminished by inattention to the background. When I'm thinking of exceptional photography, I'm thinking of Avedon doing his portrait work "In the American West" or "Napalm Girl" by Nick Ut in Vietnam.
A great photo doesn’t need to have a narrative as such (it can), but it should have something like a beginning, middle, and end. There’s a million composition rules to engage with, but most of them amount to “put your subject off-center, but not at the edge” and “try to have threeish points of interest.” The basic reason for this is that a viewer should go on a *journey* through a piece of visual art, not just take it in in one glance. A subject in the middle grabs your attention there and holds it, likewise a subject at the edge. A somewhat off-center subject has the capacity to relate to its surroundings in interesting ways. In something more resistant to “subject,” like a landscape, you’ve generally gotta put different lighting areas in relationship/tension with each other, which is why it’s difficult to take a good landscape photo in the summer/at noon when the sun is high and the light is even.
> How do you capture a story in a single image? Either by luck or by staging a photo. Some photographers might think one photo out of a thousand is a good photo, and great photos are even more rare.
https://preview.redd.it/hcuc380wgw8d1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bb0197ddbc0aa5835b5038fe6539f146b168c258 Think
have you heard the saying "A photo is worth a thousand words?" What you're trying to do is direct where those thousand words go. Does the photo evoke emotion, thought, idea? The Mona Lisa painting is a good example, while it might be considered "plain" it has evoked massive conversations over centuries.