Hello,
I am new to the community and getting back into photography after taken some classes in college several years ago. I am interested in finding good photographers to look at in the way of story telling in their pictures. Can anyone give me a few good examples? I like the idea of a photo being worth a thousand words (I know cliche), but the picture tells the story with very little if any words to accompany this.
Any ideas would be much appreciated!
Thanks!
Jeremy
I am new to the community and getting back into photography after taken some classes in college several years ago. I am interested in finding good photographers to look at in the way of story telling in their pictures. Can anyone give me a few good examples? I like the idea of a photo being worth a thousand words (I know cliche), but the picture tells the story with very little if any words to accompany this.
Any ideas would be much appreciated!
Thanks!
Jeremy
Hey Jeremy, I am also just getting back into photography after taking a basic photography course at Sheridan (near Toronto Canada) some 35 years ago!!.I once thought a picture was worth a thousand words and told the true story,now I believe Photoshop tells the story,and not necessarily true!! Just my thoughts. Good luck with your story telling - jimmy
Hey Andy, all I really meant to say was this, although a picture can be worth a thousand words. They are often not TRUE words because images are so easily altered! I don't think in this day and age you can look at a photo and say it has to be true because it was photographed. The final photo doesn't necessarily represent the actual scene or event. regards - jimmy
To some degree I share your opinion. But I also think that the power of words can accentuate a picture. Every picture is subjective. So it depends on the words if they are just gibberish or meaningful thoughts. So we have to read between the lines. Not only the words as well as the picture itself. Both are poetry.
Take care.
Take care.
A real good picture does not need any words.
Its a fact that some photographers fool around with PS in order to make their own truth. Nothing against that, as long as they do not bring their own truth as THE truth.
Once bringing forgeries as the truth, which unfortunately happens, you're a fraud.
Post Edited (15:40h)
Its a fact that some photographers fool around with PS in order to make their own truth. Nothing against that, as long as they do not bring their own truth as THE truth.
Once bringing forgeries as the truth, which unfortunately happens, you're a fraud.
Post Edited (15:40h)
Hey Beneath the stars,"So we have to read between the lines" Perhaps the only true answer. We should all keep this in mind as we travel our life path. Love your attitude and bio." I really enjoyed your creation "Me,myself and I" - regards jimmy
"A real good picture does not need any words."
can i know why ruud?
can i know why ruud?
Well i think that is quite selfevident.
A good picture will tell the story without needing any explanation. If the picture does not tell it, then somehow the maker has failed.
A good picture will tell the story without needing any explanation. If the picture does not tell it, then somehow the maker has failed.
did that works for abstract photo's?
which is, everyone with their own explanation.
everyone with their own words
everyone with their own selfevident...
which is, everyone with their own explanation.
everyone with their own words
everyone with their own selfevident...
Dont agree with you, i think also in abstract photography the maker generaly has a meaning or intention with his work.
I do agree that it is sometimes more difficult to understand.
I do agree that it is sometimes more difficult to understand.
I do Agree for Ruud.
The original photograph was "never wrong" and i think include an abstract picture. That is why?
It could be presented of subjectiveness truth of the creator. Although everybody have a different clairvoyance procedure and then different interpretation for it. So i think it is the point.
The successfully of storytelling could be measured by similarity meaning and interpreted. No reciprocation there. More and more it is similar, it had been made emotional relation both. Is it the name a good communication, isn't it?.
It is self satisfaction especially for creator.
And I think that's a fit fees. And next money fees made easy 8-))))
The original photograph was "never wrong" and i think include an abstract picture. That is why?
It could be presented of subjectiveness truth of the creator. Although everybody have a different clairvoyance procedure and then different interpretation for it. So i think it is the point.
The successfully of storytelling could be measured by similarity meaning and interpreted. No reciprocation there. More and more it is similar, it had been made emotional relation both. Is it the name a good communication, isn't it?.
It is self satisfaction especially for creator.
And I think that's a fit fees. And next money fees made easy 8-))))
14.06.07, 17:19
Post 12 of 16
We have a great topic here - "A real good picture does not need any words" .... "A good picture will tell the story without needing any explanation. If the picture does not tell it, then somehow the maker has failed".
Sounds straight forward but the more experience I get under my belt and the more people I interact with from around the world the more I have found that a picture is worth a thousand words (well .... maybe), but who's thousand words?
The differences between each of our social, emotional, cultural, educational, family, religous and economic developments profoundly impacts how we understand, relate to and have an affinity with and for different things. A picture captures a brief moment in time - it does not tell us what led up to something or what happened after, what were the circumstances, background, consequences, etc. Typically each of us focuses on and draws out of any picture something different from another. Any moment captured in time is incomplete in it's self because that moment is only representative of that moment. All other meaning is added by the viewer themselves. And if two people of identical or very similar backgrounds view the same shot then there is a good chance they will add the same meaning to it (but no guarantees).
P.S. Jimmy - I'm with you on the intrinsic belief in a pictures integrity. You can't believe every picture you see anymore, just like you can't believe everything you hear or read. It was over 12 years ago that I experimented with my first digital image manipulation and was amazed how straight forward it was to turn a picture into a lie. But what else is new, all of us who do digital photography know this.
Sounds straight forward but the more experience I get under my belt and the more people I interact with from around the world the more I have found that a picture is worth a thousand words (well .... maybe), but who's thousand words?
The differences between each of our social, emotional, cultural, educational, family, religous and economic developments profoundly impacts how we understand, relate to and have an affinity with and for different things. A picture captures a brief moment in time - it does not tell us what led up to something or what happened after, what were the circumstances, background, consequences, etc. Typically each of us focuses on and draws out of any picture something different from another. Any moment captured in time is incomplete in it's self because that moment is only representative of that moment. All other meaning is added by the viewer themselves. And if two people of identical or very similar backgrounds view the same shot then there is a good chance they will add the same meaning to it (but no guarantees).
P.S. Jimmy - I'm with you on the intrinsic belief in a pictures integrity. You can't believe every picture you see anymore, just like you can't believe everything you hear or read. It was over 12 years ago that I experimented with my first digital image manipulation and was amazed how straight forward it was to turn a picture into a lie. But what else is new, all of us who do digital photography know this.
Michael - Photographs have been manipulated since the very beginning, digital just made it easier.
There is a camp that believes the Shroud of Turin is an early Medieval photograph using a camera obscura. http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/orvieto.pdf
Artists have been using the camera obscura as far back as the 12 Century and documenting what it projected by painting, most definately taking license with the end result. The camera obscura is documented to have been in use as far back as 5th Century BC China.
http://brightbytes.com/cosite/cohome.html
http://www.black-and-white-to-color.com ... raphy.html
With the discover of how to capture the image presented by the camera obscura in the 17-18th Centuries photographers manipulated images by double exposure in the camera, and various manner in the darkroom process. The first "how to" book of photographic manipulation was published in the 1840s. Manipulation of images was very common during the Spiritualist era, with the very well known case of Sir. Conan Doyle's propetuation of the fairy hoax.
http://www.randi.org/library/cottingley/index.html
It is well known that manipulated photomontage was used in WWII progaganda images. Stalin and Lenin had people removed out of photographs of meetings. The "composograph" - that of manipulating, cutting negatives together and retouching news images became practice in the 20s. Two names that are most noted for this form of manipulation were John Heartfiled and Bernarr Macfadden, Heartfiled for manipulation mainly of political issues, and Macfadden for manipulation of human subjects, the grandfather basically of putting a head on another body.
In the 80s National Geographic caused an uproar when they moved the pyramids together for a cover.
In our very recent day, last year there was the Grand Canyon Jump scuffle on Flickr.com where in a series of unmanipulated images taken from a certain angle make an event seem more than it was. Suspicion came about because people are so much more aware and skeptical of photoshopping techniques. In the Grand Canyon case it was mearly the photographer's choice of angle that gave the impression.
http://flickr.com/photos/hansvandevorst ... otostream/
If you want to talk about storytelling, follow the Grand Canyon Leap of Faith Jump on Hans van de Vorst's Flickr site.
There is a camp that believes the Shroud of Turin is an early Medieval photograph using a camera obscura. http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/orvieto.pdf
Artists have been using the camera obscura as far back as the 12 Century and documenting what it projected by painting, most definately taking license with the end result. The camera obscura is documented to have been in use as far back as 5th Century BC China.
http://brightbytes.com/cosite/cohome.html
http://www.black-and-white-to-color.com ... raphy.html
With the discover of how to capture the image presented by the camera obscura in the 17-18th Centuries photographers manipulated images by double exposure in the camera, and various manner in the darkroom process. The first "how to" book of photographic manipulation was published in the 1840s. Manipulation of images was very common during the Spiritualist era, with the very well known case of Sir. Conan Doyle's propetuation of the fairy hoax.
http://www.randi.org/library/cottingley/index.html
It is well known that manipulated photomontage was used in WWII progaganda images. Stalin and Lenin had people removed out of photographs of meetings. The "composograph" - that of manipulating, cutting negatives together and retouching news images became practice in the 20s. Two names that are most noted for this form of manipulation were John Heartfiled and Bernarr Macfadden, Heartfiled for manipulation mainly of political issues, and Macfadden for manipulation of human subjects, the grandfather basically of putting a head on another body.
In the 80s National Geographic caused an uproar when they moved the pyramids together for a cover.
In our very recent day, last year there was the Grand Canyon Jump scuffle on Flickr.com where in a series of unmanipulated images taken from a certain angle make an event seem more than it was. Suspicion came about because people are so much more aware and skeptical of photoshopping techniques. In the Grand Canyon case it was mearly the photographer's choice of angle that gave the impression.
http://flickr.com/photos/hansvandevorst ... otostream/
If you want to talk about storytelling, follow the Grand Canyon Leap of Faith Jump on Hans van de Vorst's Flickr site.
A famous philosopher once said, "there is no such thing as the truth, only versions of it". Even at times when we have a camera in our hand but not to our eye we are constantly making decisions about what to include and exclude from our audiences vision.. if we don't shoot it, our audience won't see it. By the very fact that our 'third eye' is constantly being selective suggest we are editing the 'truth' or being selctive about what truth we tell through our lens and we haven't even borught the camera up from waist level. Of all the shots we take we further select which shots will go forward for further editing (usually those we feel show us as photographers in a good light) and a little more of the 'truth' is lost... and so on.
In the days of analogue I was fortunate enough to have a brother that was a photographic printer with one of the top print houses in London. Nearly all the 'named' photographers used that company and almost to a man would work with one or two star printers. The alchemy of the darkroom printer and his 'black and white' art had the ability to transform an ordinary negative into an image of increadible beauty. 90% of the art of producing a work was done in the darkroom.. knowing what chemicals to use with what papers at what tempaeratures for how long to create the final image. Standards only the pros could aspire to. And those with brothers in the right place. Eventually he gave it up to take up landscape gardening and that was me stuffed. Until digital came along and photoshop.
PS put what was out of the reach of most amateur photographers within their reach. PS is the digital darkroom where every image created carries its own truth.
Frank Hurley, who accompanied the Shackleton on his ill-fated journey to the Antarctic and who produced what are perhaps the most memerable photos ever taken of their stricken vessel on the ice; was also lambasted for his war photography during WW1. He created outstanding and moving images of that conflict but because they were montages they were not given recognition as 'true' accounts of the war.. though one of his images told the story more effectively than a dozen shots could ever do individually.
Guess you just have to make your own mind up about what the truth is and whether a photo conveys it.
In the days of analogue I was fortunate enough to have a brother that was a photographic printer with one of the top print houses in London. Nearly all the 'named' photographers used that company and almost to a man would work with one or two star printers. The alchemy of the darkroom printer and his 'black and white' art had the ability to transform an ordinary negative into an image of increadible beauty. 90% of the art of producing a work was done in the darkroom.. knowing what chemicals to use with what papers at what tempaeratures for how long to create the final image. Standards only the pros could aspire to. And those with brothers in the right place. Eventually he gave it up to take up landscape gardening and that was me stuffed. Until digital came along and photoshop.
PS put what was out of the reach of most amateur photographers within their reach. PS is the digital darkroom where every image created carries its own truth.
Frank Hurley, who accompanied the Shackleton on his ill-fated journey to the Antarctic and who produced what are perhaps the most memerable photos ever taken of their stricken vessel on the ice; was also lambasted for his war photography during WW1. He created outstanding and moving images of that conflict but because they were montages they were not given recognition as 'true' accounts of the war.. though one of his images told the story more effectively than a dozen shots could ever do individually.
Guess you just have to make your own mind up about what the truth is and whether a photo conveys it.
Jeremy... take a look at this fellas work for starters:
ARA OSHAGAN
http://www.araoshagan.com/index.html
You might also like to google the work of David Gillanders (a Scot)
Maguire
ARA OSHAGAN
http://www.araoshagan.com/index.html
You might also like to google the work of David Gillanders (a Scot)
Maguire