What Do You Have To Say and How Would You Say It?

Click to read more

Sauvetage dun enfant par un enfant (Le Petit Journal)

Eric’s Note: This guest article is by Dan K, a British Camera collector and photography enthusiast based in Hong Kong.

Many of the great photographers whose wisdom we like to quote are successful because they have an innate artistic sensibility. For the rest of us, it is harder to grasp what makes a compelling photo.

I recently attended the gallery of one of Hong Kong’s most famous photographers. Michael Wolf made a name for himself creating images of high visual impact with a subtly dark twist of voyeurism. His own work is compelling, yet his longest wall is filled with countless rows of historical illustrations of Le Petit Journal. These lithographs portrayed the events of the day, in a highly dramatised style.

Michael is a keen collector and these images clearly have deep meaning for him. When I asked him why, he responded that their dark stories reflected a measure of inner darkness he felt within him. The stories and their portrayal spoke to him. He also marvelled at the artist’s ability to tell this story much like a photographer, freezing the moment in time.

Yet the artist encapsulated the event so comprehensively, so perfectly arranged and from a perspective that would be impossible for a photographer to achieve.

For example, one illustration shows a child diving from a window over the River Seine to the aid of another drowning in the waters below. The artist’s point of view is some 15 feet in the air, floating above the river, a visual that clearly could not be portrayed even with modern photographic technology.

These photos and Michael’s discourse, has made a great impression on me and has led me to reconsider my own photography. There are lessons to be learned and questions that I must ask myself:

1. Tell a Story

© Michael Wolf

© Michael Wolf. From his “Tokyo Compression” series.

An image should have something to say. Ideally it should encapsulate everything that could be said. However, it doesn’t hurt to tell a partial story and leave it to the viewer’s imagination to fill in the back story and the conclusion.

Either way, it must have universal meaning. It’s no good if ‘you had to be there’ or the picture depends on some deep personal connection to the subject matter.

2. See With an Artist’s Eye


© Michael Wolf. From his “Architecture of Density” project in Hong Kong

As you look for a subject or scene to photograph and are about to take the shot, ask yourself if you would spend the time and effort to paint the image instead. If the answer is yes, then it’s worth a frame of film. One of the greatest pitfalls of digital photography is that there is no cost of making an exposure. It doesn’t force you to pre-assess the value of the image.

Once you have determined that the image is worthy, ask yourself how you would paint the image. Would you paint it from that position and eye level? Would you want to shoot it flat, or paint a wider angle of view from a closer viewpoint? What palette would you use? Would you illustrate it in pastels, pencils, India ink or try to capture the fine detail and/or texture with gelled acrylic? These relate to the focus, choice of film, or perhaps to post-process filters.

Would you paint corner to corner or focus on key elements? This relates to the optics. Should the key elements be central or otherwise? Would you be better working in different compositional elements?

3. The Process


© Michael Wolf. From his “Transparent City” project

By over-analysing, you may miss the decisive moment, especially with street photography. You may have just half a second to set up and compose. I console myself by reasoning that a shot missed by positioning and composition would have been a badly composed image and that it’s impossible to capture every even that they eye may see. Lost shots can be minimised.

If the moment happened upon is fleeting, I would shoot a little wide and rely on my own posture for position. Framing and the look of the photo can often be fine-tuned in the darkroom, or in post-production. However, if you have a static subject or the foresight to see a situation developing, you can spend the time to get it right. After a while, which may be days or decades, you will find this becoming second nature and it will seem less of a chore. It may become second nature to the point where it seems like luck.

Please share your thoughts and insight in the comments below.

Follow Dan

Don’t Miss Out on Free Updates!

If you want to stay in the loop with my travels, upcoming workshops, free e-books and presets, join my street photography newsletter below:

  • Dominik

    Good article, Dan! :)

  • millskaviar .

    Great article. I’m gonna try out the artist technique you wrote about!

  • zhangpan

    The photos should tell a real and unknown story. Great idea ,Great article.

  • ZDP-189

    Hi, I’m Dan K the author. First of all, thanks to Eric for posting my article and Thanks to Michael for his insight and permission to post his images. I appreciate all commenters’ feedback and I’ll have a go at replying to any questions or criticism. If you need to get in touch with me or want to carry on a side conversation, feel free to contact me on twitter using the link above.

  • Pingback: The Limited Role of Equipment And Technique In Photography - Japan Camera Hunter()

  • Pingback: 10 Things I Have Learned About Street Photography From Eric Kim — Eric Kim Street Photography()

  • Teddy

    I think it makes sense other then point one, “Tell a Story.” Photos aren’t stories they are images. They are single moments and stories by their very nature are a series of moments linked together. If you want to tell stories write a novel don’t take a photograph.

    Once you start making books, exhibitions, editing and adding other media like words or moving images you can begin to create stories. Telling a story is not an axiomatic part of good photography, most of the images in photography that engage with their audience best have no apparent story to tell.

    What happens is we confuse human beings innate ability to be subjective and create narratives from only the slightest hint of information. Don’t confuse the fact that you might create a story from an image from the reality that that single image is not actually trying to tell you any story at all.

    Just like if you give a child a cardboard box and they immediately turn it into a racing car or house in their imagination, don’t think because an audience immediately creates a story from an image that you are the one creating that story. It is something that you really have to give no consideration to for people to actually think of stories from photos.

    I did an experiment I put up a Tumblr with a mixture of images that I felt evoked strong feelings or potential for narrative or a story. Alongside them I posted banal pictures, some pretty, some overtly lacking in anything I felt a human being could relate too. What I found was that the comments, likes and other feedback pointed to my subjective idea of what photos would elicit stronger responses was opposed what others felt.

    It taught me that people do not approach photography is a predictable way, neither do they need a particular strong visual narrative to feel attracted to a photo. The most commented and liked photo was that of a few plastic flowers stuck into a wall display at a hairdressers I shot while waiting for my girlfriend to book an appointment, none of which I would like to state could be known from the shot alone. To any viewer it was just some plastic flowers stuffed in a crack in a wall.

  • Pingback: Photography As Part Of The Broader Visual Arts by Dan K | Japan Camera HunterJapan Camera Hunter()

  • Pingback: A Learning Framework For Photography - Japan Camera Hunter()