The Online Photographer

The attitude of valuing a photo for its technical characteristics and not for meaning/content is the fertile soil creates by big brands and on which contemporary camera marketing thrives: a photo is "good" if it is well executed, so camera makers offer a magical tool with which anyone can do "good" photos, just like the "professionals" or the "artists".

I still disagree Mike, without a caption the photograph is unremarkable. The caption lets us (you) write our own story.

This article affected me more than the picture ever could, or will, if anything the point here is underling the necessity of a good caption when the photograph isn't record enough. A picture may be worth a thousand words but sometimes words are necessary.

The problem with this approach, Mike, is that you're relying on the honesty of the captioner to imbue the photograph with meaning. What's to prevent me from taking any ordinary, mundane photo (which this certainly is, stripped of its caption and the attendant meaning), and simply make up some dramatic story behind it? Presto! Instant "meaningful" and powerful photograph!
No, I'm afraid for me I have to demand that a photograph has some merit as a photograph, and is not dependent on a backstory. In this case, it's the STORY that has the emotional power, and the photograph merely illustrates the story. It's fine, but the photo is not what gives it impact.

"When a picture does have meaning, I'm more tolerant of its other failings, which seem less important in the balance."

That's the essence of Photography!

Well felt and well said!

Great post - a point well made.

Must have been great coffee that generated this line:

"technically perfect digital confections that are devoid of even a scrap of meaning"

Digital Confections. Phrase of the week.

Interesting point of view, but I still think this photograph is more a caption than an image. The image without the caption is very weak. The caption without the image almost stands on its own.
Maybe the difference is that you are a very good writer, so words are important in your world. Personally I have a very hard time captioning, or even titling, my images...

Interesting thoughts Mike. I run into a similar issue fairly regularly as the types of photos I enjoy taking don't seem to be too popular :) For example, I find this https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-cT1iJJTSTMc/Uf_SL4H01RI/AAAAAAAAFJE/DFOTqFToKgw/s518-no/_8051699.JPG
to be the best photo I've taken in quite some time. But unless you're into old iron porn, you're not likely to agree with me. There's nothing special about this particular old 1909 Case tractor but the composition around the worm gear on the steering column is very pleasing to my eye. Eventually I'd like to get a largish print of it made and framed in my living room. Yet, equally, I can imagine that to someone who shoots HDR landscapes that are postprocessed into infinity probably would find it quite boring.

And that's ok.

I have to say that this was one of the very few photos from the contest that stopped me long enough to read the caption. The gesture, setting, facial expressions and composition combined to give me an instant feeling "there's something going on here."

Overall I was disappointed by the contest entries. Many of them were pictures I have seen many times before - not literally, but in the sense that they would be interchangeable with photos I have seen many times over the years. The minister photo struck me as one the rare interesting exceptions.

Mike, beautifully and perfectly said.

I’ll bet this scene looked (technically) better in person than the photograph. If someone skilled with Photoshop (because “there are no bad originals”) improved the technical aspects of the photograph, does that add or take away from the meaning? Or does enhancing the photograph miss the point entirely?

Photographers often disrespect post-processing and admire good work that’s straight out of camera. While those preferences come from a good place, they make me tend to photograph subjects with pretty light over subjects with interest and meaning. If Jachin Mandeno thought the way I do, this picture might not have been made and that would be a loss.

I like to think about photography in two parts: get the best picture I can when I’m there and make the most of it in post-processing later.

That was an object lesson in critiquing a photograph.

I suspect that many of the comments I've read conveniently ignore the fact that you offered the use of captions as part of the contest instructions. I wouldn't have entered the photo I did if it had to be captionless. And also, that to the people who the photographer intended the photo to be most seen by I'm sure it is an image they will treasure.

I have to comment about this one. This is a classic example of the power of annotation which some consider "not really a part of a photograph" (or other types of art). When I first saw the photograph in the first post my initial reaction was, "Why did this one make the short list?" Then I read the caption and my feelings changed to profound empathy. But this is not actually my point. When I saw it again today I had completely forgotten what it was about. But my emotional reaction to it was a strong feeling of sadness and affection without understanding why. It takes a particularly powerful captionless image to create that kind of feeling in me. I suppose I regard this image and its caption to be a fine work of art and Mike's comments about it are bang on.

Our lives are made up of "snapshots". Those are the rich moments we remember and cherish.

Mike, It didn't take me long to figure out that your likes and mine are quite different and why I have visited this blog almost every day since it started. (which reminds me September is when my subscription is due!)
I rarely look at landscape photography sites. Its what I shoot, I "get" those. I visit yours and other more "photojournalism" type sites because I don't always see the appeal and actually hope to understand more. Isn't that what we mere humans do to grow? I do look at lotsa landscape paintings to try to see why someone would invest that much time to share a particular personal view of a scene. But not so much photography of the same. I do think that the creativity of photography lies more in the journalism side because of the challenge of delivery of a moment in time. Landscape is to me more of a craft than creative. Basically similar to building something outta 2x4s and nails.

Purpose might be the determining factor in placing images into two categories. Those that benefit from annotation and those that don't.
For the second category it might be said that Art is for when words alone won't do.
For most images, even many of artistic intent, some words can actually help the viewer into the room where the meaning the photographer had in mind is on display.
I use "Each image contains many stories. The title recommends a vantage point to the viewer, from which one of the stories begins."
Ernst Haas is quoted relative to the first category.
“Bored with obvious reality, I find my fascination in transforming it into a subjective point of view. Without touching my subject I want to come to the moment when, through pure concentration of seeing, the composed picture becomes more made than taken. Without a descriptive caption to justify its existence, it will speak for itself – less descriptive, more creative; less informative, more suggestive; less prose, more poetry.”
— Ernst Haas from ‘About Color Photography’, in DU, 1961
Both approaches are valid. Both can result in what can be called Art.

I think that your commentary today reflects the reason why I am more attracted to a photographic series in a museum, than to an individual photo. The more information we get about the subject, the better. In this case the caption brought you meaning for the photo. Sometimes seeing more of a subject brings us closer to the subject and gives the subject meaning. I agree that photos that lack meaning can be uninteresting and even of less worth than a snapshot. This is something that I have personally been struggling with lately, how do I take photos that have meaning for others beyond myself? I am not sure that I have an answer to that--but I am still trying.

The picture was interesting because it gave you a platform to discuss a very relevant photographic topic. However, in the end, the photo is far from interesting to me because without the caption I get nothing. In my opinion, a photograph should at the very least draw the viewer in, so that the viewer actually desires to look at the caption.

Purpose might be the determining factor in placing images into two categories. Those that benefit from annotation and those that don't.
For most images, even many of artistic intent, some words can actually help the viewer into the room where the meaning the photographer had in mind is on display. I use "Each image contains many stories. The title recommends a vantage point to the viewer from which one of the stories begins."
Ernst Haas is quoted relative to the first category.
"Bored with obvious reality, I find my fascination in transforming it into a subjective point of view. Without touching my subject I want to come to the moment when, through pure concentration of seeing, the composed picture becomes more made that taken.
Without a descriptive caption to justify its existence, it will speak for itself - less descriptive, more creative; less informative, more suggestive; less prose, more poetry".
Both approaches can result in what can be called Art.

I think what's interesting about this photo is that it establishes a spot on the photographic spectrum that you don't often get to see pointed out. Yes, we all know about the beautiful over-saturated empty shot on the one side. But this one establishes almost the opposite. It doesn't really work for me alone, but what's most interesting, I think, is how it really does force you to start thinking about what makes a great photo. Bravo!

I think you're conflating a couple different issues. The first is the distinction between techinically perfect and pretty pictures with "art." I think almost everyone here would agree that great art must have substance and depth beyond technical perfection, and that a great photo is both visually dynamic and substantive. Of course, it can be very, very difficult to draw the line between nice pictures and art, and that's a longstanding issue in all genres.

The second is the importance and value of the caption to a photograph. I have no problem with saying that a caption can be an important part of a photograph, and that a photograph doesn't necessarily have to stand on its own, but the question here is whether the image and the caption taken together make for an interesting photograph or work of art. I don't think they do, and I think it's unfair to criticize your readers who didn't get much from the photo and its caption. I'm sure many if not most of those readers understand the importance of meaning and depth; they just didn't think the back story in this case was enough to elevate the photo.

Very interesting post and follow-up discussion. While I believe that context and story are important, there's still the undeniable appeal of pure visual aesthetics. My thought when reading the post was "how well does a photo communicate its intent?", e.g. I have photos that I believe express certain things about the human condition and culture, but I'm not sure that it is conveyed to the viewer due to the visual execution. Similarly, part of the criticism towards the posted photo is that visually it doesn't convey the story strongly, the gesture could be the result of a vast number of events, and thus needs to rely on a detailed description to convey the context to the viewer. Note that I do now think it was a good choice to feature this photo, as the analysis has proved interesting, something that cannot be said for the vast majority of photos.

One thing that does come across, completely disregarding any caption or back-story, is that this photo conveys some of the feeling of being in that room that day, whatever kind of room it may have been and whatever may have been going on in it. Sure, it's an adequate document of an event, but that's not all. The mens' faces are eloquent about something. The seated man's gesture is also eloquent - about something. In that not-so-simple way, this picture does stand on its own. Granted, the back-story makes the associated emotions much stronger and more direct and gives them the solidity of context. Still, it shows that central feeling of having been in a place where I wasn't, the thing I wish I could conjure at will when I press the button, that is what makes photography worth something to me.

Wow, this is interesting (for me at least). I read the post above, which in itself I thought was very interesting, and then, following the lead of Mike, I googled the name Jachin Mandeno. Following a link to a blog, I clicked on "All pictures" and immediately though, "I think this is New Zealand." Weird, because there is nothing really in the thumbnails to stand out as so. So, I immediately dismissed the thought as nonsense. Then I scrolled down far enough to see some place names. To my surprise, it is New Zealand. So, I don't know what it is, but there is something about these photos that led me to think New Zealand. In light of this post's subject, I thought that was interesting.

Very interesting and timely post, Mike. I just bought a used copy of the (out of print) book On This Site by Joel Sternfeld, which has straightforward images of locations where extreme violence has taken place. Reading this book, I was very surprised at how much value the factual description of the terrible event added. Like the dying minister photo, the images in Sternfeld's book are nice, but not especially compelling without the associated description.

As the volume of visual eye candy grows—online, but also at art fairs and in local galleries—I find myself gravitating to bodies of work and individual images that have an underlying conceptual foundation; in other words, photographs that make me think.

I don't believe you believe what you've said. That's basically the opinion of the management that fired the Sun Times' photographers: that you can have a good news picture by doing only the information half of the job and ignoring the aesthetic half. It's the siren song of bad news photographers everywhere who think their bad pix are adequate. It's exactly the type of attitude about news work that photographers like W Eugene Smith and the other great journalist/photographers fought.

Mike

Thank you for your kind words.

Mike,

When I first read this post yesterday, it had a different title ("The Meaning of a Picture"?). Unlike pictures, changing the title of a piece of writing doesn't change its meaning. It remains as powerful as before. By any name, this is one of your best tour de force. "The Dying Minister" is an apt title for Jachin Mandeno's photo.

I think a powerful picture is one whose impact to the viewer needs no reinforcement besides a title or a short description. A strong image contains an idea pictorially, that resonates with the viewer and invites further attention.

On the other hand, a picture deliberately captioned "Untitled" by the photographer strikes me as pretentious and arrogant. It assumes universality of experience. An untitled picture may well be meaningless.

I had a very similar experience recently while looking at photos of Native Americans taken early in this century by Edward S. Curtis. The photos are posted on the Library of Congress website, as the government had hired him to make them. One photo in particular had the effect on me that you've described in this post. The photo isn't a particularly striking photograph on the technical merits, but it's titled: Praying to the Spirits at Crater Lake. Having read the title, I had to look at the photo. Having visited Crater Lake and seen the epic beauty of the place, I could very easily imagine that local Native Americans would view it as a good place to speak to their Spirits. I am not a religious person, but Crater Lake was for me - a very moving sight. I feel like if you were to choose a spiritual belief system, the Native Americans had some ideas I could wrap my head around - at least regarding the wilderness. Here's a link if you're curious -
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/cph/3c00000/3c03000/3c03000/3c03070v.jpg
I took a photo while visiting Crater Lake at a place I thought was quite beautiful - the place, not necessarily my photo of it, and when I saw Mr. Curtis' photo, it resembles the area I photographed. Maybe the same Spirits spoke to me on that spot. Here's a link to my photo -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/01alphamale/1415099530/
Anyways, the title of the photo spoke to me before the image did, and it put me (metaphorically at least) in the Native American's shoes. The Spirits spoke to me as well at that place...

With the exception of photographs that show us historically important people or events - those don't have to have any intrinsic aesthetic goodness - the best photographs communicate both by means of pure visual power and the ability to suggest something beyond both the photographic beauty and the presumably "real-ish" portrayal of a subject.

In other words, there are photographs of stories that might be interesting or even compelling with or without the photograph - such as the story behind this photograph - that may have little or no visual aesthetic power. (I'm afraid I put this photograph in that category. I hear what you are saying about the back-story, but the image itself still seems to me no more than a snapshot.)

I can empathize with your feeling that some very beautiful photographs seem to be merely pretty to you. There are multiple explanations for this. One is that many people making those photographs seem to be doing nothing more than emulating a sort of visual presentation that they have seen elsewhere - and there may be no clear sense of the "way of seeing" of that photographer. It may also be true that there is a message behind some such photographs that a viewer might miss, whether the photographer intended it or not.

Since I'm a musician by training, let me try a musical analogy. (And the fact that I'm using music this way might point to a possible answer to your problem with photographs that are merely beautiful.) To most - though not quite all - a heartfelt performance that is banal, non-expressive, and perhaps even has wrong notes is not usually very satisfying. On the other hand, a powerful piece that is well constructed and musically "beautiful" but which carries no intrinsic message from the composer and no absolute meaning - think Mozart's 40th Symphony - can produce a powerful emotional response.

In any case, your post made me think a bit more about what this photograph might lead one to think about... but I remain unconvinced by it as visual art.

Yesterday i was visiting the WORLD PRESS AWARD travelling exhibition in Marche Bonsecours in Old Montréal and several images spoke to me before i read the attached commentary. Some were technically way imperfect but rich pictorially to paraphrase stieglitz.

The commentary sometimes added depth other times just confirmed what the image conveyed. So yes sometimes knowing the story behing the picture helps us "get it".

Meaning? Oh… you mean like instrumental jazz has meaning?

My dictionary says meaning is implied or explicit significance. My thesaurus offers these alternatives: expressiveness, significance, eloquence, implications, insinuations.

If this is what you mean by meaning, then I agree to its significance in photography.

But I would add that the image of the two men with microphones and laptop falls very short (unless presentation implies significance). An image presented in a magazine or newspaper context legitimately feeds off its caption. This is legitimate because the image is there to help illustrate a written story. But take that same image, frame it and hang it on a museum or gallery wall, or even the wall of your house, and what is it? It does not stand on its own.

I think where I really diverge from your point of view is, and I am guessing somewhat here, I think you feel the need for some evidence of mankind in an image for it to have meaning for you. Meaning is obviously subjective and personal. What I find most meaningful is usually devoid of that evidence.

Wandering OT a bit, the visual arts are a playground of visual things …and visual ideas, much like music is a sonic playground. Sometimes the result, the byproduct, has meaning to those outside of the playground, and sometimes not. But to those in the playground it is the act of play that is the important part.

You know, this reminds me of music, pop music in particular.

I've come realise a lot of people like a song because of its lyrics. I've had so many people proclaim so-and-so song is so great, but upon listening to them, I've found them rather mediocre. For me, it's music first, then we talk about the lyrics.

So similarly, it's visuals first for me. I rather have pretty visuals without meaning than meaningful pictures with mediocre visuals. Maybe it's just the way my brain works.