Marcio Faustino wrote:
Story?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … ft_003.jpg

Here the woman is pictured in a room, suggesting se is at home.
The bed is a mess suggesting something have happened there.
She is in front os the window suggesting she has memories from something or somebody who is away.
She reads a letter suggesting it may be from the person who she miss and may have shered the bed with her last night.
She looks sad.
Her image is reflected on the window glass behind grids, sugesting (symbolizing) she is locked at this place. She doesn't have the same freedom as the person who went away.
The curtain in the first plan sugest we, as viewers are penetrating a intimate moment.




Marcio Faustino

why the hell is there fruit on the bed, who would place a chair in the corner (is she baby from dirty dancing?)where the window would open up on your face if you were sitting there, does the window have to be open to let more light in so she can read.

just highlighting how different people see a different story

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Duplicate of this thread in General Industry. 

Boo for posting the same thread in multiple forums.

I know! that is my fault! I am new to this forum and didnt see the "photography talk" before i posted it in "general talk" thought it will suit better here, then I tried to remove the other one but, I cant remove so... I made mistake! I learned!

moz photography wrote:
why the hell is there fruit on the bed, who would place a chair in the corner (is she baby from dirty dancing?)where the window would open up on your face if you were sitting there, does the window have to be open to let more light in so she can read.

just highlighting how different people see a different story

Yes, visual language education and experience will help understand or misunderstand the story.

People interpretation of world is based on their experience and knowledge (way of think and see things).

PS: fruits on bed symbolize love act/seduction in the place.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I've commented on this before, so apologies if you already read it.

Your question is naive, but by no means stupid. When I was taking guitar lessons, I asked my instructor how to play with more emotion. It's basically the same question. It's a fair question, but there's no simple answer. If there were then there would be no art or pro photographers, since we'd all be able to do it. With more experience, you'll come to understand that yourself.

I say this not to be down on you, but because I suspect others will be, and I want to get in first. The fact that you're likely to get lots of unhelpful replies doesn't mean it was a dumb question or everyone is an ass - it means there are no good replies to be had.

All I can say is that you should look at a lot of photography, and see what you like. If something really speaks to you, copy it. I usually name that stuff 'photo after so-and-so' so no one thinks I'm trying to take credit for the idea, but you can learn a lot from copying. It helps you understand what makes the original so good, especially if yours doesn't quite match up.  I find that the differences usually come down to the photographer paying more attention to the subject than the camera, and clicking the shutter at just the right time.

In other words, most great photos are great not because the photographer did something special, but because they SAW something special - either when photographing, or when selecting which image to use.

If you're a reader, I'd track down Ways of Seeing by John Szarkowski, and The Ongoing Moment by Geoff Dwyer. Both books discuss symbolism and storytelling, in a much more approachable way than most theory books.

You can also look up Alec With interviews on YouTube. I'm not sure he's your kind of art nude photographer, but he speaks very eloquently about how he selects subjects, and how he knows which photo is 'the one'.

John Szarkowski is great but you actually meant John Berge, who wrote Ways of Seeing.

Marcio Faustino wrote:

John Szarkowski is great but you actually meant John Berge, who wrote Ways of Seeing.

Yes, yes I did. Thank you

I think I combined that and The Photographer's Eye in my head.

EROart London wrote:
Hey! I am starting out (so far did 2 photoshoots) with nude-photography.

I was wondering how can a picture tell a story?

there are people out there who say "this pictures tells a lot about... this and that" what is it?

Those professional photographers, how do you create them?

EROart London wrote:
Hey! I am starting out (so far did 2 photoshoots) with nude-photography.

I was wondering how can a picture tell a story?

there are people out there who say "this pictures tells a lot about... this and that" what is it?

Those professional photographers, how do you create them?

First you have to be clear on what story is and what it's not - it's not the plot.

"Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water." is plot.

"Jack and Jill went up the hill because she was pissed at him and she knew it would make his bad knee hurt." is story.


Can you imagine a photo that make the second example clear? That's how you tell a story in a photo.

Zack Zoll wrote:
When I was taking guitar lessons, I asked my instructor how to play with more emotion. It's basically the same question. It's a fair question, but there's no simple answer. If there were then there would be no art or pro photographers, since we'd all be able to do it. .

The thing is, as you were learning you were playing with 100% emotion. It's just the wrong one - the feeling of uncertainty or doubt is what comes out when you haven't mastered something.

It could also come across as oblivious if you have it mastered but are not playing with the feeling that's right for the music.

It's wrong emotion vs lack of emotion.

"Bad" erotic photography is the easiest photography example. It's usually not that the photo is bad, it's that it's a great photo of someone who's bored and faking it - the wrong emotion.

hbutz New York wrote:
A photo which tells a story is documentary.  An art photo seeks to evoke emotion, mood, or other intangible idea.  Nude photos which tell a story are typically found in National Geographic Magazine.  Art nudes do not need to tell a story.  Often, an art nude presents more questions than answers.

Story is the emotional events that happen. Plot is the physical events that happen.


All photos evoke emotions. It might be boredom, but it's still evoking an emotion.

Carlo P Mk2 wrote:
"Story" I love that word :-p

I find it hard to find a real "story" for art nudes as I always ask the question "why is s/he naked?" Ones photographed in a room in a house/hotel are kinda easy if the models have the right expression/pose. Studio shots against a plain backdrop and outdoor nudes are just waaaay over my head.

Then again it's easier to tell a "story" with people. I once read a product photography book and there's this picture of a muffin. The author was like oh the lighting is too flat so there's no story. I'm just like....it's muffin for crying out loud! :-p

By "art nudes" people mean figure nudes, right?

I often feel like they aren't about anything. It makes sense because they're about a body or a shape, making who it is and how the feel irrelevant. They're being shot as a physical being only, not an emotional one - an object.

Those photos still tell stories though - mostly about the person who shot them.


Picture some people formally dress in a church. It's not a super wide shot. A couple of them are crying.

Is it a wedding or a funeral?

That's story, that's the issue with the muffin. Was it an everyday muffin, or a holiday muffin? Everyday, can be flat, but a holiday muffin must be dynamic and vibrant. Whoever was paying for the photo had an agenda - a point to make with the photo, a feeling to create in the viewer. "Eat boring robot muffin every day for health." or "Show your best this holiday season so that people will like you and look at this shiny muffin with specular highlights like diamonds - ooh ahh - that's what they will say about you if you make it, so buy this magazine so that you'll have the recipe that's inside!"

It's not the muffin telling the story, it's the presentation that tells the story through the feeling it shows or provokes in the viewer.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:

The thing is, as you were learning you were playing with 100% emotion. It's just the wrong one - the feeling of uncertainty or doubt is what comes out when you haven't mastered something.

It could also come across as oblivious if you have it mastered but are not playing with the feeling that's right for the music.

It's wrong emotion vs lack of emotion.

"Bad" erotic photography is the easiest photography example. It's usually not that the photo is bad, it's that it's a great photo of someone who's bored and faking it - the wrong emotion.

I would respectfully disagree with everything but the last line.

Jeff Buckley's version of Hallelujah is uncertain and doubtful, and I would add awkward as well. And it is one of the most beautiful songs ever recorded. You could say that was the right emotion for the song, but very little of that was in the Leonard Cohen original - he's far too stoic to be awkward. He was doubtful, but Cohen is too much of a cool customer to be gawky. But Buckley was a fantastic musician and guitar player - that gawky musicianship wasn't his default method of playing. At the very least he learned a piano part on guitar before there were books for that nor the internet - that takes skill a newbie doesn't possess. Maybe he felt he needed to play more uncomfortablely for the song, or maybe he was just stricken by emotion by the music that didn't turn too many heads in it's original recording.

Obviously there are other examples, but that's the first one that comes to mind. There is a difference between naive art that is good, and art that is not. Keith Haring is good, as are The Stooges, as is Daido Moriyama. A teenage kid could do all of that - but the important thing is, they don't. There is a wide gap between being technically bad, and making work that is good despite or because of technical limitations.

When I said 'I want to play with more emotion', I thought I meant just that. Now that years have passed and I'm (barely) better, I know that I meant 'I want to have something to say.' But those were the words that occurred to me at the time.

People that say they want to 'tell a story' with their photos don't literally want to tell a story. If they did, they'd switch to video, or photojournalism. Or maybe they'd write comics. I'm sure everyone here will disagree, and cite photos where so and so makes them think about who someone is, or what they're doing. But I'll say right now, that's not telling a story. If it were, you would already know who they are and what they are doing. If its storytelling, its bad storytelling.

The OP said he wanted to tell a story. I think that what he really means is that he wants to take photographs that have a deeper meaning than pretty pictures, and that is how I answered the post.

Zack Zoll wrote:
[...]

When I said 'I want to play with more emotion', I thought I meant just that. Now that years have passed and I'm (barely) better, I know that I meant 'I want to have something to say.' But those were the words that occurred to me at the time.

[...]
The OP said he wanted to tell a story. I think that what he really means is that he wants to take photographs that have a deeper meaning than pretty pictures, and that is how I answered the post.

I agee with that.

I think poeple started using "tell story" as misunderstanding on "have what to say". A image that tell somthing by familiar or even if not familiar but recogniseble symbology, look, scenes, senses appeal. Everything else is just "nice photo" empty on meaning and in real soul appeal. Just empty material/object of posses as appeal.

In my opnion this appeal happens when we feel or sense conected with what whe photograph (or play or paint). It is like seen ourslves in the thing and make a selfy portrait. Not about photographing the thing but the feeling conection to it


I know it sound very romantic And dreamy but you know what I mean or what I am trying to say once you step on it. Words are often not enough.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
He''s doing a cover to make it his own. It''s the right emotion for that performance. And there''s no uncertainty on the line "the major lift".

There''s not necessarily only one emotion either. There can be contrast, it''s just a question of what''s right for your intent.


The OP didn''t say he wanted to tell a story, he''s asking how it''s possible.

The part about switching to video or photojournalism. I spent 2-3 years really investigating choose a photo to tell a story. Why go through all the expense and effort if you can just write it down on a piece of paper with a 59 cent Bic pen. Or why write and record a song.

The answer is pretty simple - it''s for the inherent power of photography. That doesn''t explain much, but the best thing is to compare it to language. Language simply doesn''t have as fine a resolution as a feeling or emotion or anything you can experience with any of the five senses. The purpose of art is to communicate while bypassing language.

That''s one of the things that makes filmmaking unique - it''s using visuals, music, sounds that aren''t music or speech  and the dynamic of volume, and it''s using language all simultaneously. That allows the director to use music in a scene to be certain people get what''s going on even if they''re not really following the dialog. Or to complicate a scene by contrasting the feeling in the music with what''s taking place.

Context will affect the medium you choose - a visual can be better for a mass outdoor audience that might not be able to hear clearly. Or vice versa.

There are messages that are contained in associations, so if you want to show someone empathy when they''re sick, cooking soup for them may be a better choice than a photo where you''re frowning with a thermometer in your mouth.


Then there are traits inherent to the story teller. A dyslexic is probably better off in a visual or tactile medium than using language. Someone who''s blind is going to find photos a little more challenging etc. We all have varying balances of sensory proficiency to push us one way or another.

Mikey, I don''t think we''ll truly see eye to eye on this - and that''s okay. But I will say this:  when people ask how do do something, it''s generally because they want to do it. You don''t see too many ''how to get this effect?'' Threads started by people that aren''t interested in actually doing it.

Again, I''m responding to the underlying question - not the literal words that were used.