It is often said that eyes see, camera captures, and a photo portrays. When we look at something, we must choose where to focus our gaze because our field of vision is limited. Our eyes perceive more than what a camera can capture. When taking a photo, we achieve this through the use of technical equipment that gives the moment its shape and freezes it into a photo.

It is also been said that a photo tells a story and the photographer is the narrator. Can a single photo tell a story? Maybe a series of photos or a photo that comes across as realistic and documentary-like. Even then we can ask, is the photographer the narrator? Or is the photographer the object that has been captured? A single photo shows its subject, but we cannot conclude anything certain about what has ensued. The photo only turns into a story in the process of being viewed by someone.

Everything has a story, or so it is said, and that’s how humans create meaning in the world. However, a story is only one interpretation of the moment captured, and it is shaped by the viewer’s perspective. That’s why we should be critical of stories that are given to us.

Moreover, why and for what purpose do we use words to explain photos? Do photos need words to clarify and explain what is already in them? An explanation often diminishes the world captured and overpowers the visual impact of the photo. Words are for the blind. And I, for one, would like to be deaf to them. Stories often force photos into being something other than what they are. A single photo captures a specific place at a specific time. It does not tell anything. Things simply happen in front of a camera, and the photo’s meaning is created when a person begins to interpret it. These interpretations are always the viewer’s version of the story, not the photographer’s.