Photos and Words

Is a picture really worth a thousand words? Should photos speak for themselves or does the photographer need to guide the interpretation? Should we combine photos with words? Should we even have captions?

Yes. Wait…no. Man, I don’t know.

There are many answers to each of those questions. A photo may be worth a thousand words, but depending on the content of the photograph and the audience viewing it, just which words could be hard to determine. The photographer needs to determine what the message is and communicate that. If words are needed, use them. If not, don’t.


I remember my early impressions of Ansel Adams, probabaly the first photographer’s name I ever remember remembering. I loved his work. It was…um…pretty.

Recently, I watched a great special on public television about him and his work, and I never realized what he was trying to communicate or what he achieved through his photos, historically. Basically, the West was declared closed. We had tamed the wilderness. America had hit the West coast and civilized everything in between.

Ansel Adams felt that the wild was an essential part of America and being American. He did not want to lose that and so he proved otherwise with his photos. There was much untamed wilderness. His influence did much in the development of an environmental ethic, even when “environmentalism” was not a word.

Maybe that message was understood by the people of the time, but I am guessing it was not the “Such-and-such Mountain at Dusk” titles that communicated his message. They already understood or felt much of the context of his photography.

On the other side of things, most of my photos come from China and the cultures which live there. Without captions or some kind of communicated message, viewers would often have no idea what is going on in the photo, much less what the greater implications or story are behind the photo.

Basically, if you want to become an excentric artist, you can do anything you want. If, however, you want to communicate with your photography, you will need to evaluate the audience and how they will understand the content of your photos. You might even have some pity on later generations who will not understand the context at all and just go ahead and write a caption.

Cooper Strange Written by:

5 Comments

  1. Ryan
    2009-03-17

    Maybe this is what you are already saying, but I think the photo itself should compel the viewer to want to know more. I love going to MSNBC’s “The Week in Pictures” each week and seeing the pictures that are posted there. I understand that this is photojournalism, but I think there is an important part of photography here. There are a few of these photos that I will look through on MSNBC’s website and I have no interest in them, but their are so many that when I see the photo it draws me in. It could be a very simplistic or very complex image, it doesn’t matter, it’s the way that it is presented that makes me want to know more. I think that’s what separates photography from sitting through you grandmothers vacation photos.

  2. 2009-03-17

    Absolutely! Every photographer should hone skills in making the photographs more appealing and interesting, to draw in the viewers. Especially for photojournalists, though, a caption is needed to know what is going on, and they almost always have one…well, sometimes they do not, but that is when we already know what we need to know about the story to understand the photos’ content.

  3. 2009-03-18

    Here is a YouTube video link from James Nachtwey, a very well known photojournalist, but usually for war photography. This video with his photos is an excellent example of very few words, but just enough to give the photographs a very powerful voice.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj8KZNI6-W8

  4. Ryan
    2009-03-18

    wow, those are some powerful shots.

  5. 2009-03-18

    No kidding. Most of his work is war photography, though, and he catches the moments that really define a conflict, if you ask me.

Comments are closed.