Photo storytelling

[TexasShadow]

I present a perspective of photography and a challenge based on that.

First, what is photography? It means many things to viewers; I'm guessing a variety of meanings. One I present here is photography as a story or narrative.

Anyone familiar with the history of art will know that photography, like many art forms, is a means of expression. But art can also 'tell' true and fictional stories. One photograph can tell a story, a series of photos can relay a narrative, in similar fashion as a book or essay. Sometimes the story is obvious, other times ambiguous and/or vague. Interpretation is a function of pattern recognition, existing knowledge, and imagination of the viewer. And the photographer.

The challenge: present a photograph or short series for discussion and/or critique. In this exercise, participants may learn to develop a language to discuss and think critically about photographs. We could extend this by suggestions of projects which can help clarify the technical aspects of photography while encouraging creative approaches to photographing. Most of all, it can stimulate the viewers' eye, perhaps seeing things they may not have seen, or seeing things in a different way.

This is not a contest, but a challenge: challenge yourself, your eye, your technical skills and, most of all, your mind. It is an opportunity to learn and share.

I will post a photograph tonight (on home laptop) which tells a story, or more accurately, asks questions.

The door is open, invitation stated. Post up.

[Tourmeister]

Great thread idea Elzi! :clap:

[TexasShadow]

http://texasshadow.smugmug.com/photos/495417172_acWHW-L.jpg

Above is an example of a story, statement and a plate of questions. The photograph portrays one example of many stories in the Big Bend desert, but also is a sampling of a narrative in all our Southwest arid environments.

Look at the overall photograph, then closely at the various components and how they relate to each other not compositionally but as pieces and parts of an overall statement. The cumulative information then evokes questions. One approach is to move from right to left in the photograph. This represents a sequence, if you will. Both of time and action.

Granted, the photograph was composed from my eye and viewpoint (or perspective). I'm curious to see how many others can recognize the salient points in this photo, and perhaps even ask the same question(s). The most likely will be those familiar with the Big Bend area and share an appreciation for it.

This one photograph represents a section of an essay, very relevant to the past, present and future. It is also one of a series of the area offering a more coherent narrative. The relevance here is that photography is, or can be, a hybrid of oral and textual story telling, except that it is completely visual with its own 'language without words'. And it can greatly influence perception and attitudes. Anything visual usually has more emotive and empathic impact than reading text. If the photograph is done right.

I am interested in comments and thoughts here. I also hope others contribute their photos, questions and ideas.

[M38A1]

http://texasshadow.smugmug.com/photos/495417172_acWHW-L.jpg


I see a story of evolution by both man and nature, as well as the interaction of the two for a full circle of life or overlaps as you mention. The first items that caught my attention were the vivid green plant just beyond the rock wall and the walking bridge. The walking bridge is obviously going over a water source the green plant needs to survive, as well as providing a water source for the place the photo was taken, so the two are tied to one another. I will go with that train of thought for the rest, but I also assume there is additional water provided for the other plants in the vicinity as I see a xeroscape line or two indicating a good water source, possibly a well.

I believe the birdhouse was intentionally left in the picture for purpose. That could have just as easily been left out, but I believe the birdhouse was left to show how the seeds of the plant or plants are spread by the birds, as well as the birds requirement for water by the bridge over the water.

The contrast between the bright green plant as well as the psuedo-lush vegitation in the immediate foreground, contrasted to the lack of vegitation in the distance show to me the difference between man and nature and what is provided. I presume the green plant close in is also watered in addition to the source under the bridge. The color difference show that possiblility as do the xeroscape lines.

And finally, the natural rock formations in the distance contrast with the edge of the man made wall showing human interaction between the two.

So to conclude, the full circle of life is present. We have a water source required tp support life and a mechanism to spread plants along with the desert natural rock and mans use of that rock for purpose. I'd bet there's more than your use of the rock within a short distance for a headstone of someone who passed in the desert looking for the water source and closing the circle.

Technically I like the shot. My opinion is the tree is a bit too much taking away from the vastness of the scene. I also think one of your bright blue sky days would be a bit better than the somewhat hazy sky in the distance.

If this is your daily view with a cup of coffee, I am envious.

[Azylum]

good thread. ive got a motoscavenger hunt today but im gonna bring the camera and see if i find anything. :mrgreen:

[TexasShadow]

http://texasshadow.smugmug.com/photos/495417172_acWHW-L.jpg
I see a story of evolution by both man and nature, as well as the interaction of the two for a full circle of life or overlaps as you mention. The far right in the photo, except for the rock wall at the bottom, represents the desert without any human 'footprint', aka human artifacts. If the entire photo was of that exact spot in the desert without any of the human artifacts, one would think it was a 'wilderness', 'desolate', 'barren', etc. In other words, no sign of human presence.

Now viewing right to left and including the rock wall, we see human artifacts and the desert scape modified by humans. So now there is a human 'footprint'; a 'stamp' or imprint, if you will, upon the desert scape that signifies human presence. No longer is this desert wilderness, barren or desolate.

You rightly pointed out several of those modifications and 'stamps'. And the implied presence of water. Yet, that arroyo over which the bridge spans rarely has water. So what is its function, then? If it does not serve the function that we associate with a bridge like this, why is it there?

You brought up a good point about the plants in the left half and foreground of the photo. They are not indigenous to that desert, yet they do inhabit arid and/or semi-arid land. The trees especially require water, more than the desert can provide. Here again is human modification.

Notice the walkway bounded by locally gathered rock. Think about how you would walk through the desert floor on the right versus that in the left half. It is purposely directed. What does that indicate about ourselves?

I believe the birdhouse was intentionally left in the picture for purpose. That could have just as easily been left out, but I believe the birdhouse was left to show how the seeds of the plant or plants are spread by the birds, as well as the birds requirement for water by the bridge over the water. That was not really the intention for inclusion of the birdhouse, but it is a good point. My intention was to show another aspect of how we modify the environment to suit us. The birdhouse attracts animals not only to direct their inherent functions in the ecosystem -spreading seeds- but also for our own enjoyment. But rather than waiting to see birds in their normal habitat, we use something man-made to bring them to us.

And finally, the natural rock formations in the distance contrast with the edge of the man made wall showing human interaction between the two. Yes. The main purpose of this visual 'story' is to contrast the natural and man-made or modified, mostly how we interact with the desert environment. But this is only one story in a narrative. Several photos I've taken there present different stories, sometimes polar opposites.

Here is a representation of merging a couple's perspectives of the desert and how they fit into the desert scape. It also implies a set of values of these two people. Here they have chosen xeriscaping plants that still require human care, albeit minimal. Their landscaping water originates form the house gray water. Even though the arroyo rarely has water in it, the bridge serves several functions, both practical and aesthetic. Because they are elderly, it provides an easy path across the arroyo rather than a cumbersome climb in and out. But this is a typical garden bridge found in landscapes with a brook or creek. It gives the illusion of the presence of water. ;-)

The rock-lined path is an example of how we as people prefer direction and control. The eye and foot traffic is purposely directed versus chaos, or no sense of direction. It implies a sense of purpose and direction.

The questions raised here are: what is 'wilderness'? What is 'wild'? Where do others draw the line of impact and modification on an environment such as the desert? This is a harsh land where water is scarce. How much can we demand of it to support us? Do we try to 'tame and control' it, extracting all we can for our own purposes? Or do we adapt ourselves to what the desert will support us without taking it all, such as the Beech's? Where do we draw our lines? Can we strike a balance, a compromise where we can survive, enjoy our lives, and still imprint a piece of us upon the landscape that is non-disruptive?

Technically I like the shot. My opinion is the tree is a bit too much taking away from the vastness of the scene. I also think one of your bright blue sky days would be a bit better than the somewhat hazy sky in the distance. The trees are an integral part of the story. The only place you find trees down there is at a reliable water supply. Not near, but at. Water is scarce. In fact, if you need water, you look for the bright verdant green of cottonwoods which indicates a spring right there.

Another point in this story is the haze: haze is either from dust in the air or pollution. Haze has become more common; air pollution is now a big concern there. On both sides of the river. How do we control that?

If this is your daily view with a cup of coffee, I am envious.It is the Beech's daily view from their patio. I myself prefer the view from Roger's. It's more......... dramatic and natural :mrgreen:
It will be a little while more before I have may own morning coffee view down there. ;-)

Photography can greatly influence a person's notions and perspectives about places and things. Even the public at large, which can have long reaching and long term consequences. Ansel Adams' photographs of Yosemite as a 'wild area', untouched by humans, greatly impacted this country's perspectives of what wilderness is: pristine land that has never been 'touched' by humans. But it was an erroneous view and perspective, which still remains decades later. Tourism photography, especially used for national park guides, still presents a misguided view of the land and the people that lived there. It has influenced the national park policy to this day and continues to promote a skewed perspective of what 'wilderness' is. Because there isn't any.

The stories are incomplete.

Big Bend is a perfect example of how photography impacts perspectives about the area; the parks and the areas around it. I'm guilty of that myself because I tend to photograph how I prefer to see Big Bend. I changed that during my two week stay down there.

[Tourmeister]

:tab If a wild animal alters the environment, say by digging a hole to live in or pooing out in the open, why is that acceptable as compared to the effects of man interacting with the environment? Why is one "natural" and the other not? Is man not a part of nature? It seems to me to be an artificial distinction, especially if someone believes in evolution and the notion that we are just another form of animal :scratch:

:tab Now don't get me wrong, like many other people, I too like seeing "pristine" wilderness where man has not tread (at least not too heavily). Isn't it strange that so many of us should seek to shun the hive like activity of the masses and all traces of the impact of that activity? Even more strange is that some people come to despise it, some loathing themselves and the rest of us simply because we are inescapably human. It has always perplexed me how so many of the Earth First types of people see humans as a parasite on the planet to be done away with. :scratch: Of course, you don't see many willing to start with themselves :-P

:tab Regarding the stone lined path and bridge, It could just be something as simple as wanting a clear path so you don't get poked by cactus needles or twist an ankle on loose rocks. Is that really seeking to control things or impose order, or just using our intelligence to avoid potential injury? The whole order thing kind of strikes me as odd as well... :ponder: To my eye, there is a whole lot more order and structure in the absence of man, than the other way around... To me, it seems that man often introduces disorder :shrug:

:tab Blah blah blah... It is a cool pic :thumb: I need to go digging through some of mine and find one to post up for this thread.

[Tim Kreitz]

We creative professionals have a special term for this kind of self-indulgent discussion regarding our creations: "Happy Horse ****".

In my opinion, the worst thing you can do to any piece of art, but especially a photograph, is over-analyze it. I work with several award-winning photographers on a regular basis, and one thing I've learned is that photography has as much to do with chance and the moment as anything else. Even still life and landscape photo situations are fluid to a degree. Paintings, illustrations, and other media also regularly defy or fall short of the given artist's intent.

It's one thing to say, "This is what the piece means to me." But many times, saying, "This is exactly how I intended it, including the following minute details," is applicable to precious little finished artwork.

Not trying to harsh anyone's groove -- have fun and enjoy this thread. Just pointing out that these kinds of art discussions can become shallow and [self indulgent] if you're not careful.

Carry on. :thumb:

[poser]

I just see the biggest back yard EVAR!

[TexasShadow]

Not trying to harsh anyone's groove -- have fun and enjoy this thread. Just pointing out that these kinds of art discussions can become shallow and [self indulgent] if you're not careful.Whatever, Tim. Each to their own.

I suppose that the study of art history is shallow and self-indulgent, too? Maybe all art is self-indulgent! Art serves several functions than just "Ooh, ahh". It can be a media for statements, stories and narratives, even propaganda. The only difference between photography and text is the language, the lack of words. It can be rich in visual symbolism, metaphor, and/or irony.

You make up stories inside your head when you view photographs. Sometimes they actually convey a specific meaning or evoke strong feelings and emotions. I can't say that the photographs I viewed of concentration camp prisoners during the Holocaust were self-indulgent, despite they left me and others absolutely speechless. Some people cried. Some people had to turn away.

I don't equate my photography with such impact at all. Yet, if you studied art history, including photography, you might learn that many photos were carefully staged to obtain the right 'story' for political and personal impact. Edward Curtis, Ansel Adams are a few. Then there are those -Dorthea Lange, Louise Bourgeois, Alfred Eisenstaedt and so many more- that captured moments in every day life with so much impact that they stunned viewers. That is what photography is: impact. A media that conveys a message. It makes people think rather than just feel good inside.

Think outside your box.

[ed29]

What is permanence?

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd52/edhegarty/DSC00248.jpg

Do we define permanence as something which lasts the rest of our individual life?

Is it something we expect to last until the end of time itself?

Is it something between the above time frames?

Did this lady's family believe that the marker placed on her grave 136 years ago was a 'permanent' marker for all generations to come?

What is permanence?

[Tourmeister]

:tab Good one Ed. Cemeteries exert a special pull on me for some reason. Maybe it is the issues of permanence, self, existence, etc,... that are all brought to the fore when confronted with mortality? As the monuments attest, we all seem to desire some form of permanence of self, even if only through a faded and cracked grave marker with nothing more than our name, beginning and ending noted. Oddly, I find the little country cemeteries scattered about the woods in my area to be comforting and peaceful places :scratch: I find myself thinking about the people buried there. What were their lives like? What were their hopes and dreams? Did they accomplish any of those things? Did any of their actions ultimately matter? Then there are the numerous graves of young mothers and infants. Life was VERY different, even only a hundred years ago...

[sharkey]

We creative professionals have a special term for this kind of self-indulgent discussion regarding our creations: "Happy Horse ****".

In my opinion, the worst thing you can do to any piece of art, but especially a photograph, is over-analyze it. I work with several award-winning photographers on a regular basis, and one thing I've learned is that photography has as much to do with chance and the moment as anything else. Even still life and landscape photo situations are fluid to a degree. Paintings, illustrations, and other media also regularly defy or fall short of the given artist's intent.

It's one thing to say, "This is what the piece means to me." But many times, saying, "This is exactly how I intended it, including the following minute details," is applicable to precious little finished artwork.

Not trying to harsh anyone's groove -- have fun and enjoy this thread. Just pointing out that these kinds of art discussions can become shallow and [self indulgent] if you're not careful.

Carry on. :thumb:


Gee Willickers, I agree w/ you once again. Everyone will bring their own interpretations to a image (which may or may not be a work of art).

Example: It never fails that my most favorite image of a wedding is never what the customer finds as their favorite. Many times, they don't even buy the image I like best. :doh:

Anyway, I do like the photo I just find it hard to ascribe a story to it if I wasn't there or didn't experience it. That said, I like looking thru the photo books I've created but I think our friends accodomate us when we have them over and bring the books out. :doh:

As Tim said, carry on.....

[Tourmeister]

Similar to Ed's permanence theme:

http://www.twtex.com/linkfiles/PhotoContest001/DSC_0082.jpg

:tab Spring time always gets thoughts like these running through my head...

:tab While shooting pics of the kids in the flowers, I was musing over many ideas. There is no permanence of the individual per se, at least not in the here and now. Flowers and people alike all die. Yet to a degree, we all live on in our off spring. While there may not be ultimate permanence, there is continuity from beginnings to the end.

:tab All the new growth and lushness bespeaks of a purity and newness, unmarred by the vagaries of the weather. There is an intensity and energy that seems to burst forth from all the Spring time blossoming. Likewise, I see in my kids a bit of that same purity and innocence if you will, and in particular that intensity of energy! :doh: :lol2: They too have not yet had to weather the storms of life that can leave such a trail of destruction. Yet sometimes, devastation can clear away accumulated debris and clear the way for new growth. In the Spring and in my kids, I find hope.

[Tourmeister]

Whatever, Tim. Each to their own.

I suppose that the study of art history is shallow and self-indulgent, too? Maybe all art is self-indulgent! Art serves several functions than just "Ooh, ahh". It can be a media for statements, stories and narratives, even propaganda. The only difference between photography and text is the language, the lack of words. It can be rich in visual symbolism, metaphor, and/or irony.

You make up stories inside your head when you view photographs. Sometimes they actually convey a specific meaning or evoke strong feelings and emotions. I can't say that the photographs I viewed of concentration camp prisoners during the Holocaust were self-indulgent, despite they left me and others absolutely speechless. Some people cried. Some people had to turn away.

I don't equate my photography with such impact at all. Yet, if you studied art history, including photography, you might learn that many photos were carefully staged to obtain the right 'story' for political and personal impact. Edward Curtis, Ansel Adams are a few. Then there are those -Dorthea Lange, Louise Bourgeois, Alfred Eisenstaedt and so many more- that captured moments in every day life with so much impact that they stunned viewers. That is what photography is: impact. A media that conveys a message. It makes people think rather than just feel good inside.

Think outside your box.

:tab For sure, images are VERY powerful, particularly if they have already been associated with some concept or symbol. I have a book on Totalitarian Art that is fantastic. The scary thing is how much of that kind of imagery is present in our own society... :wary: Images can inspire. They can create a sense of awe. They can create a sense of expectancy or dread. They can break our heart. I think of the many images that have come out of the various wars of the last century or so and the range of emotions is unbelievable. So often, a sense of despair rises. But then there will be those shining moments that stand out from all the grime, destruction, death, and horror. They give us reason to hope.

:tab Sure, there are likely many times where the full effect of an image was neither intentional or anticipated by the person that created it. Sometimes, despite all the intention in the world, the image simply does not deliver. Sometimes, the creator of the image just gets REALLY lucky. I know for many of my images, it is my personal connection with the content that makes the image significant, whereas another person would likely be totally indifferent to the contents. I think the truly great images transcend the individual connection and touch on universal aspects that speak to all of us on a very basic level. The more complex the intention, the less likely it is others will "see" the same things as the creator.

[Janet]

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff32/jbee101/Florida/DSC_0047.jpg

[Azylum]

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m81/zcarninja/my%20photos/102408066.jpg

[TexasShadow]

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff32/jbee101/Florida/DSC_0047.jpgwow........ There's a story there. What's ironic in this is the statue that screams action amidst the natural surroundings which are mute. There are no clues that tie it together except for the engraving and one's imagination.
Very cool.

[TexasShadow]

:tab Sure, there are likely many times where the full effect of an image was neither intentional or anticipated by the person that created it. Sometimes, despite all the intention in the world, the image simply does not deliver. Sometimes, the creator of the image just gets REALLY lucky. I know for many of my images, it is my personal connection with the content that makes the image significant, whereas another person would likely be totally indifferent to the contents. I think the truly great images transcend the individual connection and touch on universal aspects that speak to all of us on a very basic level. The more complex the intention, the less likely it is others will "see" the same things as the creator.Intentional and unintentional can overlap. Emily Greenwald wrote, "Historians of photography have argued that, over time, the camera came to stand in for the eye, allowing us to see things that we can't necessarily perceive with human eyes." Yet that is only one of many influences of photography, as it is of all media. A key factor is interpretation. How we read the 'story'.

Media are formats for information. That information may be personal or transcend individual connections, or both. Like all forms of information transmission, interpretation can also be personal or universal, specific and non-specific, simple or complex. Sometimes complexity and chaos serve functions, other times simplicity may have the greatest impact. Regardless, a person's view of life can be mediated by photographs and photography, even when he or she is not looking through a camera.

I have always been curious about how people interpret photography and photographs. Hence my proposal for this thread. Glad to see you actively participating. :clap:

FYI: A website some may find interesting: History of Photography (http://photohistory.jeffcurto.com/).

[TexasShadow]

Thought I would share this. The book is a classic, a great read for anyone truly interested in photography.

---------------------------------------------

How Do We Read a Photograph?

Whenever we look at a photographic image we engage in a series of complex readings which relate as much to the expectations and assumptions that we bring to the image as to the photographic subject itself. Indeed, rather than the notion of looking, which suggests a passive act of recognition, we need to insist that we read a photograph, not as an image but as a text. That reading (any reading) involves a series of problematic, ambiguous, and often contradictory meanings and relationships between the reader and the image.

The photograph achieves meaning through what has been called a 'photographic discourse': a language of codes which involves its own grammar and syntax. It is, in its own way, as complex and as rich as any written language.

The photograph both mirrors and creates a discourse with the world, and is never, despite its often passive way with things, a neutral representation. Indeed, we might argue that at every level the photograph involves a saturated ideological context. Full of meanings, it is a dense text in which is written the terms of reference by which an ideology both constructs meaning and reflects that meaning as a stamp of power and authority. Far from being a 'mirror', the photograph is one of the most complex and most problematic forms of representation. Its ordinariness belies its ambivalence and implicit difficulty as a means of representation.

To read a photograph, then, is to enter into a series of relationships which are 'hidden', so to speak, by the illusory power of the image before our eyes. We need not only to see the image, but also to read it as the active play of a visual language. In this respect two aspects are basic. First, we must always remember that the photograph is itself the product of a photographer. It is always the reflection of a specific point of view, be it aesthetic, polemical, political, or ideological. One never 'takes' a photograph in any passive sense. To 'take' is active. The photographer imposes, steals, re-creates the scene/seen according to a cultural discourse. Secondly, however, the photograph encodes the terms of reference by which we shape and understand a three-dimensional world. It thus exists within a wider body of reference and relates to a series of wider histories, at once aesthetic, cultural, and social.

Every photograph is not only surrounded by a historical, aesthetic, and cultural frame of reference but also by an entire invisible set of relationships and meanings relating to the photographer and the point at which the image was made. The image is as much a reflection of the 'I' of the photographer as it is of the 'eye' of the camera.

Thus we can read a photograph within its own terms of reference, seeing it not so much as the reflection of a 'real' world as an interpretation of that world.


Graham Clarke (1997): The Photograph. Oxford: Oxford University Press

[TexasShadow]

A point of view and a story.

http://texasshadow.smugmug.com/photos/509196609_N9HyF-L.jpg

[Brotha J]

I've got two that I really like (that are not my daughter).

1.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/brothaj55/TWTex%20Stuff/DSCF2029.jpg

My only regret is not being able to frame this shot exactly how I wanted to. It was semi crowded at the Fort Worth Zoo at the time and I did not want to be rude.

[Brotha J]

2. Currently named "Highwater"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/brothaj55/HighWater.jpg

I took this one from the back of a trailor (on a hay ride) at Galaxy Ranch. I took it with a Fuji S100 4MPcamera that I sold for $20 this past Saturday at our yard sale. It was a Thanksgiving celebration at a ranch that her former school owns out in Tawakoni.

[TexasShadow]

http://texasshadow.smugmug.com/photos/520210927_CGGrp-L.jpg

http://texasshadow.smugmug.com/photos/520214920_4T8vZ-L.jpg

Storytelling photos from Fort Richardson last weekend.

[suzukijo]

http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr36/suzukijo/IMG_8250.jpg