vemödalen

n. the frustration of photographing something amazing when thousands of identical photos already exist—the same sunset, the same waterfall, the same curve of a hip, the same closeup of an eye—which can turn a unique subject into something hollow and pulpy and cheap, like a mass-produced piece of furniture you happen to have assembled yourself.


Ref: http://www.dictionaryo​fobscuresorrows.com/


I was out shooting yesterday . . . a luxury of time that I don't always have. I found plenty of things to shoot, and they were a technical success, but then as the day wore on, I wondered with each shot, "What story does this tell?"


A beautiful image with no story, or that doesn't grab your soul in some way, is what? Vemödalen perhaps?

The definition makes a good point. I quickly realized that many others have better equipment and more knowledge than I do for creating photos of famous landmarks and beautiful animals. Now I find odd little things to shoot instead.

If you shoot what you see, you end up with images like everyone else has.

If you interpret what you see, the image is different and has your vision.

golfecho wrote in post #16696941
n. the frustration of photographing something amazing when thousands of identical photos already exist—the same sunset, the same waterfall, the same curve of a hip, the same closeup of an eye—which can turn a unique subject into something hollow and pulpy and cheap, like a mass-produced piece of furniture you happen to have assembled yourself.


Ref: http://www.dictionaryo​fobscuresorrows.com/


I was out shooting yesterday . . . a luxury of time that I don't always have. I found plenty of things to shoot, and they were a technical success, but then as the day wore on, I wondered with each shot, "What story does this tell?"


A beautiful image with no story, or that doesn't grab your soul in some way, is what? Vemödalen perhaps?

A great piece by Winogrand that addresses single photographs telling stories.

about a 1:27 in gets to point.
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=Tl4f-QFCUek

When everyone is following the same rules of comp and goes to the same places to take photographs how fresh can the vision be?

golfecho wrote in post #16696941
n. the frustration of photographing something amazing when thousands of identical photos already exist—the same sunset, the same waterfall, the same curve of a hip, the same closeup of an eye—which can turn a unique subject into something hollow and pulpy and cheap, like a mass-produced piece of furniture you happen to have assembled yourself.


Ref: http://www.dictionaryo​fobscuresorrows.com/


I was out shooting yesterday . . . a luxury of time that I don't always have. I found plenty of things to shoot, and they were a technical success, but then as the day wore on, I wondered with each shot, "What story does this tell?"


A beautiful image with no story, or that doesn't grab your soul in some way, is what? Vemödalen perhaps?

so did someone make up this word?

yes, not all photos have a "story to tell"

sometimes a pic is just a pic

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16697821
A great piece by Winogrand that addresses single photographs telling stories.

about a 1:27 in gets to point.
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=Tl4f-QFCUek

I love some of what Winogrand says, Allen. Especially this part:

"There isn't a photograph in the world that has any narrative ability - any of them. They do not tell stories. They show you what something looked like, to a camera."

Very often, when people see my wildlife photos, they say, "That's a great photo, because it tells a story." Then they ask, "So, what was happening there in that photo."
I feel like answering with, "If it tells the story, then why do you have to ask me to tell you what was happening?"

I don't go along with rejecting the ability of photos to tell stories. How extreme a statement did Winogrand intend? Granted, a picture doesn't write a novel, but a picture can utter a sentence. If photos had nothing to do with storytelling, they'd have no value as illustrations in journalism.

^ ^ ^
Photos assist people in story telling. Sometimes, their ability to help someone tell a story is essential. But they do not tell the story, they are merely used to help a person tell the story.

OhLook wrote in post #16699028
I don't go along with rejecting the ability of photos to tell stories. How extreme a statement did Winogrand intend? Granted, a picture doesn't write a novel, but a picture can utter a sentence. If photos had nothing to do with storytelling, they'd have no value as illustrations in journalism.

There are reason that photos have captions in newspapers, documentary photographers work in bodies of work and have forwards and artist statements and thats exactly the reason Winogrand said those things about single photographs (and there is a long list of other great photographers that agree with him) by their very nature can not tell a story. The viewer is the one telling their stories not the photograph. Great photographs ask question, inspire thought, but to many photographers miss out on so much great work both shooting and viewing looking for something that just isn't there.

Without getting too much, I hope, into semantics (e.g., what does "tell" mean?) . . .

A one-panel cartoon with no caption can tell a story by presenting a situation that the viewer's mind fills in, extending what's shown into the past, the future, or both. A photo could theoretically do the same thing by showing real-world images of exactly the things drawn in the cartoon. So can't a photo do that kind of telling without being preceded by a cartoon?

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16699374
single photographs [...] by their very nature can not tell a story. The viewer is the one telling their stories not the photograph.

This is exactly my view too. A photograph is a moment, frozen in time. It doesn't tell a story, it simply *is*. It is the viewer who fills in the before and after and who builds a story but with each viewer that story will change, be different. Just like nobody reads the exact same book.

OhLook wrote in post #16699389
Without getting too much, I hope, into semantics (e.g., what does "tell" mean?) . . .

A one-panel cartoon with no caption can tell a story by presenting a situation that the viewer's mind fills in, extending what's shown into the past, the future, or both. A photo could theoretically do the same thing by showing real-world images of exactly the things drawn in the cartoon. So can't a photo do that kind of telling without being preceded by a cartoon?

When you let go of story telling as a requisite for a photograph being good you open up an entire world of great creative images. Again there are reasons why photos in newspapers need captions and/or article to accompany them. Documentary photographers work with words and photographs.

OhLook wrote in post #16699389
Without getting too much, I hope, into semantics (e.g., what does "tell" mean?) . . .

A one-panel cartoon with no caption can tell a story by presenting a situation that the viewer's mind fills in, extending what's shown into the past, the future, or both. A photo could theoretically do the same thing by showing real-world images of exactly the things drawn in the cartoon. So can't a photo do that kind of telling without being preceded by a cartoon?

We live in a certain culture and photographs will reflect that culture and so we will often be able to 'fill in the blanks' but that doesn't mean the photograph tells a story. It only means we can place it in context and that is a different thing. It is very much doubtful that say 500 years from now people will be able to fill in the blanks of today's photographs. And if they will attempt to do so, their 'stories' will be very different from ours.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #16699405
It is the viewer who fills in the before and after and who builds a story but with each viewer that story will change, be different. Just like nobody reads the exact same book.

In the sense in which nobody reads the exact same book, even a book of stories doesn't tell stories. Can we find a set of meanings for words which will make this statement correct: "A story writer tells stories and a photographer doesn't"?

I just happen to think that a number of photos do tell a story.

It may not tell the same story to someone else, but that photo to me does get expanded into a story.

It's a fail to expect a photo, or art in general, to mean the same thing to everyone.

All I can do is be happy with things that matters to me.