I’ve used walking, especially in the forest, as a sort of self therapy since I was a young lad — the only difference now is I always carry a camera to capture what happens to capture my attention. During my walks I’m often multi-processing, working on inner issues while observing the outer world through a camera frame. Perhaps during these moments there’s an exchange of thought or impressions — inner to outer and outer to inner.
This possible link intrigues me and is considered when reviewing photos to see if I can decipher clues to deeper meanings. But then photography is such an imprecise language and I seldom have success interpreting it.
Hi Earl,
It’s interesting that you should say that photography is an imprecise language. After I read that, the first thing that popped into my head was: “no it’s not, a picture is worth a thousand words”! I think in some ways photography is SO much more precise than words. All depends on the photo, I suppose.
Hi Eric, I wouldn’t disagree that a photo can be expressive. I would never try and describe the beauty or wonder of a scene in words if I could present a photo instead.
But for more factual use, even our best photos are open to interpretation a thousand different ways depending upon who is viewing it. How many times have I said, “Wow, I didn’t see that.” when someone else has commented on a photo.
Take these two sentences…”John Smith of Somewhere, ND, was found standing over the wounded body of Sam Right, also of Somewhere, ND, at 6AM this morning on Sam Right’s front porch holding a smoking handgun. Sam Right had been seen the previous night in the company of John Smith’s wife which may have been motive for the shooting.”
Only fifty-five words. Expressing the journalistic who, what, when, where, why and how written above in a single photo which clearly gave this same complete factual details to each viewer would be nearly impossible, unless you photographed the sentences themselves. :-)
A photo is of one moment and does a remarkable job of capturing details and the emotion of that moment but alone often doesn’t tell the whole story leaving itself open to different personal interpretations by the viewer — a strength and a weakness. As photographers we may make and post a photo which we feel clearly expresses a meaning to us but we can never know what meaning someone else may see or feel.
A photo may indeed be worth a thousand words…but we don’t always have control of the thousand words used. My reason for saying they are an “imprecise language.” :-)
A very good reply, Earl. I see your point. I suppose it’s all summed up by your last sentence. It makes me think of the issue of taking vs. constructing a photograph: in the first case we come across a subject and if we do a good job taking the photograph then we have in essence “chosen the thousand words”. On the other hand, if we are trying to construct a photograph (your analogy to the police narrative), we have to work a lot harder and the language may be imprecise. If someone had taken a photo of John Smith standing over Sam Right’s prone form, with a pistol dangling from his hand, and behind him we see John’s wife standing with an anguished look on her face…we’ll, that just might sum things up rather nicely. :-)
Sorry if I hijacked your post!
This fictional photo would also need to depict the names of the alleged shooter and victim as well as scene being in the town of Somewhere, ND, on Sam Right’s front porch at 6AM in order to be as factual as those 55 words in my example — a lot to ask of one photo. Even then, I suspect people would interpret it differently somehow. :-)
Not to worry…once I “birth” a post I’m always happy to see it take a life of it’s own…especially for good conversation.
classic beautiful forest shot
yz, thanks. With a very mild winter thus far, the forest here are still retaining some color making it a good time for photography.
I agree that photography is imprecise, but it’s also universal, yes? A photo taken in Japan is interpreted with ease by someone that does not speak Japanese from the other side of the world. Even with a well framed photo, it’s entirely subjective and can mean something else to another person from the intended reason by the photographer. Therein lies the beauty of photography..
Cheers mate!
NR, as I replied to Eric above, that subjective interpretation is both the strength and weakness of photography as a communication media. Yes, it may well be universal in the core aspects but imprecise for conveying an exact point.
Worth a thousand words indeed — the photographer supplies part of that thousand and the viewer supplies the rest. :-)
Thanks and good to hear from you again!
A fine shot in the woods. This is a great place to contemplate some of the issues in life including our photography.
Hi Don, I definitely do a lot of contemplation on these walks. Thanks!
I fully agree. Sometimes, you don’t even need to use words, just a facial expression, to get through what you mean. Words and gestures are so much stronger when you want to express yourself. In photographs, to really get through what you want to say, you would have to simplify and clarify to such an extent that the image easily gets a cliché, like advertisement. (In my world, those thousand words are not the photographer’s but mine, the viewer’s).
Ove, I agree the “viewer” has the final say in each individual case. As photographers we work hard at creating images which “communicate” to us and we use many photographic techniques to try and convey this “message” to others, the viewers.
Success may be measured in that it communicated at all. I’m always pleased if a photograph of my speaks to someone else…what it exactly conveys to them is not always a critical factor. It’s that spark of communication that can mark it as a success — just my thinking.
The leaning tree in this photo amplifies the impact in this scene.
I don’t think photography is alone in being “an imprecise language”. I think all forms of artistic expression, including the written word, can be misinterpreted or confusing to others, especially if there are cultural differences. Some artists works are intentionally ambiguous as a way of attracting attention or interest. That can work to your advantage, but first you must have full understanding yourself.
Ken, I crossed a creek and climbed a small bank to frame that leaning tree where it is. It is an important part of the composition.
I guess how precise a language is depends directly upon the those who are communicating…the old saying comes to mind, “They speak the same language.”
“…but first you must have full understanding yourself.”
I wonder if anyone really has full understanding or are we constantly evolving and changing…even if ever so slightly? Is full understanding an illusion? I’d say we simply work from where we are at in the moment and that may change. Just from the conversations and opinions stated in these comments my understanding of photography as a language has “matured” beyond what it was originally.
Thanks for the imput.
I am particularly drawn to the imprecision of our chosen second language. Perhaps we can say a photograph is worth many thousands of words, with each viewer supplying the words (or not) for their particular story. As already mentioned, a photograph can tell many different stories. That is exactly what draws me to visual works.
When a photograph holds my attention long enough for a story or feeling to emerge within me, I have become a participant and made an active connection with that image. That is a satisfying experience. I spent some lovely moments lost in this picture. This must have been a nice walk. And, what a terrific discussion you set off.
Anita, I understand that view. As I replied to Ove above :
“Success may be measured in that it communicated at all. I’m always pleased if a photograph of my speaks to someone else…what it exactly conveys to them is not always a critical factor. It’s that spark of communication that can mark it as a success…just my thinking.”
I’m glad this photo captured that “spark” and I’m very pleased with this enjoyable discussion. I’m learning a lot. Thanks!
I’ve been thinking about this one, Earl. Always a little scary when my brain starts churning away on something, but your use of the term “imprecise language” really caught my attention. My first reaction (like Eric’s) was, “that’s not so”. Heck, what form of communication can possibly be more “precise” than a photograph? Well, except maybe for a mathematical equation. Those things don’t allow for much in the way of interpretation. But photographs can also be pretty darned specific. What you see is what you get. When I make an image, what’s in the frame is a known quantity. There’s nothing “imprecise” about it.
The problem, of course, is when somebody else looks at it. As Anita suggests, the other person’s interpretation could be – probably will be – something else entirely. And then only if they connect to it at all. If they do, then there’s a story there. If they don’t, it’s just another blank page.
If good photography is visual metaphor, and I believe that it is, then the power of that metaphor, its ability to communicate effectively, depends on both the photographer and the viewer. For the photographer, it’s all wrapped up in that old idea of “fuzzy concepts”. If it ain’t clear to you, the photographer, it will never be clear to anyone else. Sort of like listening to Sarah Palin talk. All you can say afterward is “Huh”? “What did she say”? The same applies to “fuzzy” photographs, I think. Looking for “meaning” is a pointless exercise.
On the other hand, the non-fuzzy image will generate multiple interpretations – some that are consistent with the photographer’s intentions and some that are not. In my opinion, one measure of the “goodness” of a photograph is how much the view of the audience aligns with that of the photographer. If the agreement is high, then the photographer’s use of visual language is fairly “precise”. They’ve “communicated”. If everybody’s interpretation is different – and wanders all over the metaphorical map – then he or she (the photographer) didn’t get it quite right.
My thoughts, anyway.
Paul, some things to “mull over” here but my first impression is in general I don’t disagree…more consideration required. :-)
As I mentioned above, in replies to Ove and Anita, to my thinking there is a level of success if a photograph communicates at all, perhaps that would align with the definition of a non-fuzzy image.
I see the “meaning” as why a person reacts in the way they do to a certain photo or certain features in photos. It may be as simple as a childhood memory or experience but in any case it’s more about the person than the photo. Not always a pointless exercise if considered self-discovery.
I’ve also seen the situations where viewers agreement is high among themselves, but it doesn’t align with that of the photographer — a photo which communicates clearly, just not what the photographer intended.
As I said…more consideration required. I do appreciate everyone sharing their thoughts on this.
That is a very graceful and elegant image. The contrast between the bare branches and that wonderful pastel blue of the sky is amazing. And I feel like I can even smell the fresh and crisp air!
Martina, thank you. It was such a beautiful day when I took this photo…glad some of that was capture and came through the photo.
In response to Eric’s comment it looks like you’re going to become a murder/mystery writer now? LOL
I agree and can relate with the statement you made in your comments to Ken, “my understanding of photography as a language has “matured” beyond what it was originally.” As a photographer, and a viewer, my language has changed a lot. Hopefully more of my images speak to a wider audience than in the past.
Your image reminds me of those walks I made in Blendon Woods in Columbus!