Fractured Granite, Reflections. Kings Canyon National Park, California. September 15, 2013. © Copyright 2014 G Dan Mitchell – all rights reserved.
Many of us tell stories related to our photographs — I relate a short one with almost every photograph that I share on this website. These stories fall into several categories. They may relate the circumstances surrounding the making of the photograph. Some attempt to describe technical issues related to the image. A few will try to extrapolate meaning from the photograph and relate it to non-photographic subjects including the photographer’s personal life. Some photographers seek to impress with stories of the tremendous lengths they went to in order to make the photograph.
I often wonder how much these stories affect how they photographs are interpreted. Does a great story increase our interest in a mundane photograph? Do beautiful photographs get overlooked because the photographer doesn’t elaborate on them? How important is (or isn’t) it to know the lengths the photographer went through to make the photograph?
I have included two of my photographs with this post — photographs that many people like and remember and occasionally collect.
I can tell a pretty good story about the first one, seen above. The location is a small alpine lake at 11,000′ of elevation in the Kings Canyon National Park Sierra Nevada back-country, in an area that is not on major Sierra trails. It took us two days to get there and two days to get back out again, and we spent about a week camped in this remote location, during which we intensively photographed the surrounding area. I had been there only once before, decades ago on my first (two week!) solo backpacking trip, when I walked to the location from another campsite, looked around a bit, and left. I happened on this scene one early morning and there is a very good chance that my visit in 2013 may be my only visit to the place.
Here is another photograph and another context.
Shoreline Reflections, Tenaya Lake. Yosemite National Park, California. June 30, 2010. © Copyright 2014 G Dan Mitchell – all rights reserved.
I was camping on the trip when I made the second photograph, but in an exceptionally accessible area that I have visited many times. In fact, I’ve been to this exact spot many times and have no doubt that I’ll go back again. I drove to this spot, and my car was probably parked not more than 100 feet from where I set up my camera. After finishing this and a few other photographs, I probably drove back to camp for breakfast and coffee.
How does the difference in the stories of the two photographs affect their success as photographic images? Or does it? How important is it to know the story? Or is it? I won’t reveal all of my thinking about this question, but I will say that the question is probably a bit more complex than it might first appear.
Morning Musings are somewhat irregular posts in which I write about whatever is on my mind at the moment. Connections to photography may be tenuous at times!
G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist whose subjects include the Pacific coast, redwood forests, central California oak/grasslands, the Sierra Nevada, California deserts, urban landscapes, night photography, and more.
Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email
Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.
Images which accompany words may enhance a story, just as words which accompany an image may enhance a photograph. But in the end, neither should affect the success of the other.
Most non-photographers will not care how you captured an image, though photographers may find your story enthralling-because they can relate to the extents to which a photographer will go to capture an image they envision.
There may be some (non-photographers) who will enjoy hearing how you got the image, but then that depends on how well you tell a story. And, is the story interesting?
But, if we are talking about ART, no explanation is better, I think. A great image speaks for itself; why muddy it with words. Similarly, most literature lacks accompanying photos.
Thank you …i am new with Google+ and sometimes i wish i could ask a personal question referring to an image and it seems that it is impossible except this format here !!!which i am grateful.
Enjoy your day.
Ginette
I had an “old timer” once tell me that people want what they THINK they can’t do for themselves much more than when they THINK they can do it themselves (even if they never will).
While many would suggest that an image should be able to stand on its own strengths, the addition of the story “may” have impact on what others think relative to whether they feel that it is something they “COULD” do for themselves or value even more as something they could NOT do for themselves.
I think that both of these images stand on their own merits with/without the story. The addition of the story in the first does infer to most people that it is a location that few will ever see personally. The second story infers that it could be shot readily by anyone and that you may very well shoot it again and produce a “better” version in the future.
We know that there is MUCH MORE to any image than just the click of a button, but heroic efforts to produce a poor image compared to ease of capture for a great image won’t necessarily add value to a poor one. However, if we make the great one sound “too easy” it can make others THINK they could have easily do the same if they so choose … suggesting a devaluation.
But, if we can suggest that one has the vision to see and transform the routine, ordinary or relatively accessible into the extraordinary work that is before them … then THAT is something that others may recognize as something they realize they haven’t done for themselves. This then intimates that valued relationship of the photographer’s vision to the world (mundanely local or arduously remote) around him in a way that others do not always “see” things.
Deciding on the inclusion/exclusion of the story is no different than deciding on the inclusion/exclusion of a rock or a leaf in an image. Whether it is augmenting or detracting from your image or message will typically guide your decision. One might ask, is the story augmenting the image, or is the image augmenting the story?
In the end, it can cut both ways … but the judicious decision for the inclusion (and presentation) of the story as a detractor or enhancer can be a fine line between that of a braggart vying for attention or revealing valuable insight into the artistry. We put a lot of time, effort, care and attention to detail in our images … we should do the same of our story if we truly want it to be an integral contribution to the image.
Kent
“One might ask, is the story augmenting the image, or is the image augmenting the story?”
Interesting, and in line with some of my vague comments about the issue being more complicated than it might first seem. If one’s primary goal is to tell stories in written form, a well chosen photograph can enhance that story — even if the photograph is not “great” on its own merits. And, on the other hand, less-than-great writing may well help viewers make more sense of or form a personal relationship with a visual image.
From the photographer’s perspective, it occurred to me that a really good photograph may benefit from words that help viewers relate to it or understand it in ways that they might otherwise not see… but good words will rarely make a mediocre photograph anything other than what it is.*
Dan
* Well, except on the web, where sometimes it seems that less-than-stunning photographic work does manage a bit more readily to make an impression when accompanied by certain kinds of text. But that is another post perhaps… ;-)
My starting point for this post was thinking that the circumstances of the photograph shouldn’t be important — it should either “work” as a visual image or not work.
I still tend to lean toward something like that. I’m uneasy about photography that relies too much on the story about the photograph, especially when the photograph itself doesn’t impress me that much.
But then I though about a few other factors that make things less clear-cut. For example, I almost always post background information about eh photos! Several who have replied to this post have also pointed out something that I do believe, namely that the photograph isn’t quite just about the image itself, but also about how the photographer sees and otherwise relates to the subject.
I’m also aware that some photographs simply require some explanation or context in order for them to make sense. And it is true that photographs can be used to tell a story or to tell part of a story — as I write this a copy of John Weller’s “The Last Ocean” sits in front of me, and the stories behind the photographs in that book surely matter a lot.
On the other hand, we’ve all seen some photography that is presented along with hyperbolic, made-up or exaggerated heroic stories about the tremendous difficulty of getting the image or claims of the specialness of the process used to produce the photograph. And sometimes the gap between what we read and the quality of what we see seems quite large.
Dan
Good one, Dan. Context is everything, and so is descriptive narrative. For example, I took some really cool shots of animals in settings resembling their “native habitats” – i.e., photos I took of lions, hyenas, crocodiles, siamangs, and tigers at the Oakland Zoo. On first glimpse, they (perhaps) stand on their own as “interesting” and “captivating” snapshots, but they absolutely do not compare a whit in emotional impact or interest to photos taken on a remote bush safari in Africa. On the other hand, some of my prettiest, most precious water / reflection shots (imho) are taken right outside my door at the local park. Does ease of access and pedestrian location make them any less pretty and precious? (Say, as opposed to pretty creek shots in the North Fork American River canyon?)
I think that stories speak volumes about the photographer and when we buy photographs we like to feel that we know the photographer’s thought processes and practices and have some kind of connection with the photographer’s work practice and persona.
Rosemary, that makes a lot of sense, and it is in line with my belief that a photograph is more about the photographer (and what/how he/she sees) than it is about the stuff in front of the camera. Perhaps the stories help convey more about the person.
Dan