Telling a story through photos

[Harlequin565]

I realize that there is a man pouring metal into a mold and in between he likes to drink a cup of tea. But I still don't know what he produces.

I think that's where things get a bit "Horses for courses". Those images do tell a story for me. They don't recall anything in my mind at all because I've never been there... I get a sense of atmosphere, and to a small degree, loneliness and sadness. All this from looking at the (series of) images. I have no clue what real life is like for him apart from the few words Andy introduced them with. I'm drawing my own conclusions and I like how that set gives me freedom to do that. This kind of documentary photography I like - because for me - it very much tells a story. But I appreciate it may not be for everyone.

 

[sirch]

I get a sense of atmosphere, and to a small degree, loneliness and sadness.

I don't get that at all, may be the cup of tea shot makes him look a bit lonely but I suspect that's more about the "decisive moment" of that photo and the edit. I also think a lot of the atmosphere comes from the use of B&W and the processing which is a choice of the photographer, I bet it doesn't look like that when you are there. To me he seems quite content and probably takes pride in his skill and is comfortable with the routine.

 

[jerry12953]

Somewhere in the middle you have the image that fulfills both objectives, it stands as a work of art and sits in the middle of a collection or narrative. This is the elusive image

This is the holy grail. I often categorise my images - useful for putting on the website for example - as in, landscape, abstract, documentary. Just sometimes I find something that would fit well in more than one category. Then I have an image that really works.

As a general rule single images don't tell a story very well. A collection or series can do that much more successfully.

 

[jerry12953]

I don't know if this is what you mean. I took this photo a few nights ago and I believe I captured it exactly as looks at night. Really, just because I liked the lighting and colours of things in the shop. Not sure there's a story in it. Or maybe there is with the coronavirus signs relating to not staying too long and not changing tables?

Patisserie by Merlin 5, on Flickr

Or the emergency exit sign leading INTO the shop......is there a story there?

 

[Ed Sutton]

But even a photo series as above does not tell the right story without an explanation in text form.

I realize that there is a man pouring metal into a mold and in between he likes to drink a cup of tea. But I still don't know what he produces.The photographer also likes to spoil his photos with a lavish logo, is that the real story?

Andy did say that he only posted a selection from the series.

 

[DG Phototraining]

"I'm not getting the narrative" is one of the most annoying comments I've seen !!!

Sometimes, there just isn't one, sometimes if the viewer doesn't 'get it' then surely that's their problem not necessarily that of the photographer

I don't shoot for 'narrative' but sometimes its obviously there and sometimes its really not - if the shot works for me then I'm happy

Dave

 

[drsilver]

Lee, I looked at your shots on the other thread. Great stuff. Keep at it.

On the broader theme of pictures that tell stories, here's one I shot yesterday.



I think it tells a story. Maybe even one of your stories. Probably starts with 'Dammit.' Might just end there too, or not.

I only made this shot because of the light. I was out looking for interesting light. I think this qualifies. Story was a bonus but it wouldn't have caught my eye without the light. Probably would have been a more attractive photo if it had been, say, a spider web. Zero story though. Hasn't ever made any photographer pass up a spider web in interesting light. Spiderweb pictures are everywhere.


Story free.

EDIT
I forgot this shot. It's another one I took yesterday. Absolutely meaningless, but I needed something to go in this light. It was the only thing I could get an angle on. I think it's ridiculous enough to make it at least a little bit interesting. Is that a story?


A glimpse of the future

 

[viewfromthenorth]

A picture never tells a story.

At best, it recalls a story in the mind of the viewer. And this is different for everyone. Even a photo that contains nothing but a rubber glove or a blade of grass can call up stories or not, depending on what the viewer has already experienced in his life and what not.

But even a photo series as above does not tell the right story without an explanation in text form.

I realize that there is a man pouring metal into a mold and in between he likes to drink a cup of tea. But I still don't know what he produces.The photographer also likes to spoil his photos with a lavish logo, is that the real story?

The 'real story' requires a little intellectual and imaginative investment on the part of the viewer, irrespective of whether they can relate to the content of the imagery (and not just fixating on a watermark that's less than 10% of the image)

The question posed in #29 was "I'd really like to see a set of images telling a story" and not, "show me a photo documentary", hence the omission of a large introductory text and captions. I chose a set of images that show what Keith does, maybe it needed more to provide a proper narrative arc.

I'd agree that an introduction explaining Keith's 50 years as a foundryman, an overview of the green sand casting process, and the fact he's making parts for chip shop machinery would provide valuable context. But I chose not to - however, there's a longer form, captioned version on my website here if you're interested.

 

[lemo]

I think it tells a story. Maybe even one of your stories. Probably starts with 'Dammit.' Might just end there too, or not.

For those who have ever tried to cast a rod, there is a story to remember. Those who have never seen a fishing rod do not know what it is all about - no story, or maybe one you haven't thought of.

Story free.

For those who have ever observed what happens when something gets caught in the spider's web, there is the story of the spider who has built a new web but has not yet caught anything.

Pictures do not tell stories. Which story comes to mind depends on the viewer.

 

[Merlin5]

Lee, I looked at your shots on the other thread. Great stuff. Keep at it.

On the broader theme of pictures that tell stories, here's one I shot yesterday.

View attachment 297571

I think it tells a story. Maybe even one of your stories. Probably starts with 'Dammit.' Might just end there too, or not.

I only made this shot because of the light. I was out looking for interesting light. I think this qualifies. Story was a bonus but it wouldn't have caught my eye without the light. Probably would have been a more attractive photo if it had been, say, a spider web. Zero story though. Hasn't ever made any photographer pass up a spider web in interesting light. Spiderweb pictures are everywhere.

View attachment 297572
Story free.

EDIT
I forgot this shot. It's another one I took yesterday. Absolutely meaningless, but I needed something to go in this light. It was the only thing I could get an angle on. I think it's ridiculous enough to make it at least a little bit interesting. Is that a story?

View attachment 297578
A glimpse of the future

Thank Ken for your encouraging words and taking the time to look at my photos, much appreciated. Really like your photos here, particularly striking is the school bus stop photo, awesome sun rays!

 

[Merlin5]

For those who have ever tried to cast a rod, there is a story to remember. Those who have never seen a fishing rod do not know what it is all about - no story, or maybe one you haven't thought of. Pictures do not tell stories. Which story comes to mind depends on the viewer.

View attachment 297638View attachment 297639View attachment 297641

I like those,. Abstract, and allows for the viewer's' imagination.

 

[Ben johns]

I don’t have anything against people that want to look for meaning or story in a photo but I get fed up “artists” sometimes. I don’t have that kind of brain but I don’t see how people can look at a splat of paint on a canvas and claim to get a sense of what the artists was trying to convey. It’s partly because I don’t think like that but also because I look at something for what it is, a nice painting or a nice photo. I don’t think I’ve ever taken a photo with the intention of it having a story, I’ve only ever taken it because I think it will look cool. I’ve taken a lot of candid family photos over the last few years and I can see how people looking at them could get a “story” out of them but I just thought it was a nice moment. I have had 2 people in my family who drew and painted very well. One thought like me and the other more along the story and meaning side. I think if you see stories in something naturally then roll with it, but if you don’t and try to force because you think it should be there in my opinion it will never work

 

[sirch]

but I get fed up [with] “artists” sometimes. I don’t have that kind of brain but I don’t see how people can look at a splat of paint on a canvas and claim to get a sense of what the artists was trying to convey.

But why do you care? Some people like rugby, some ballroom dancing, some like a take-away kebab, others like to spend all day preparing a meal, it takes all sorts to make a world. If I like to wonder at a Rothko and you like a Constable that's fine by me.

 

[Ben johns]

But why do you care? Some people like rugby, some ballroom dancing, some like a take-away kebab, others like to spend all day preparing a meal, it takes all sorts to make a world. If I like to wonder at a Rothko and you like a Constable that's fine by me.

I don’t care really. But I’ve seen people being critical of photos and I wish sometimes a photo (or a painting) could be just seen as it is. As you said to each their own, it doesn’t really bother me, I might have been a bit overzealous when I said fed up. It’s more that I don’t think photos need it. John free is one of my favourite photographers and he seems to be able to do both really well, photos that look good as just a photo but do seem to have meaning too

 

[jerry12953]

Paul Hill said this about what he was trying to do - "to say something rather than show something".

 

[LeeRatters]

A day spent with Keith in his one man foundry, from arrival at 5:45 to going home just after 2. This is the condensed version!View attachment 296999View attachment 297000View attachment 297001View attachment 297002View attachment 297007View attachment 297008View attachment 297009View attachment 297010

I think this really works simply because every image has the same look to it.

I take images that I think look nice (generally) Be that a mountain scene, tree, waterfalls, woodland, close up fungi, etc That could be the subject, the framing, the light, the weather conditions...... There's not really a straight answer.

I do sometimes like to edit my images from the same place/morning/etc to look alike though. I also dislike the same image edited in four different styles as some people do - no offence intended

In other words, I don't really look for a story.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

I think this really works simply because every image has the same look to it.

I take images that I think look nice (generally) Be that a mountain scene, tree, waterfalls, woodland, close up fungi, etc That could be the subject, the framing, the light, the weather conditions...... There's not really a straight answer.

I do sometimes like to edit my images from the same place/morning/etc to look alike though. I also dislike the same image edited in four different styles as some people do - no offence intended

In other words, I don't really look for a story.

Thanks, it does work better with captions and knowing Keith’s story, but you can get the gist of a day in the life of a hard working man. As to the semantics of telling a story with images and story telling images I don’t think we’ll get a consensus but it’s good to hear different views.

But if your images look good and say something to you - meaningful or otherwise - all is good. You may even construct a story after the event if one wasn’t apparent when you were taking the image, or sequence it with others that may give it more meaning.

 

[mrtoad]

all art is emotive
photography can be art if you "feel" the subject telling you something...its personal but can be shared...you will then find others like your work because they also "feel" something
mechanical and technical photography isnt really phun

and fotography is phun...

 

[Lensflare]

I was coached by a very well respected picture editor - to make a picture stand out he decreed it had to include THREE elemnts pertinent to the subject or crux of the matter. That would make one picture stand alone and give the viewer plenty to think about. Taking details is great, but you then need three pictures to provide the same information.... space is at a premium on the page, or it was then, now the page just get padded out.

 

[drsilver]

I was coached by a very well respected picture editor - to make a picture stand out he decreed it had to include THREE elemnts pertinent to the subject or crux of the matter. That would make one picture stand alone and give the viewer plenty to think about. Taking details is great, but you then need three pictures to provide the same information.... space is at a premium on the page, or it was then, now the page just get padded out.

If we agree that photojournalism can be art, I think you're talking about photojournalism.

This is one of my favorites. I shot it in the late 80s when California neighborhoods going up in flames was still a little shocking. I always tried to pack as much information into a tight composition as I could. Composition had to be tight, though. I'd routinely shed information to get there.

 

[Box Brownie]

If we agree that photojournalism can be art, I think you're talking about photojournalism.

This is one of my favorites. I shot it in the late 80s when California neighborhoods going up in flames was still a little shocking. I always tried to pack as much information into a tight composition as I could. Composition had to be tight, though. I'd routinely shed information to get there.

View attachment 298814

For sure emotive and "telling"....though without a narrative of its time & place it somehow missed something!

PS it does have shades of the 'famous' 1968 Don McCullin picture of the US soldier in Vietnam

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

Hi guys. Since I started photography in the summer, I've learnt a lot and got to grips with many of the technical aspects and am happy that I'm getting sharp photos.

However now I'm having doubts on what to photograph as I'm a bit unsure if every image has to tell a story. I see plenty of other people's shots that are really nice to look at, maybe a landscape, a colourful painted house, a bird in flight, a bird perched, a stationary car, etc. Are they all necessarily telling stories?

Is taking a photo of something aethetically pleasing meaningless if there's no 'story', and do you always think about the story before you press the shutter or sometimes just snap something for the sake of it just because it looks nice and maybe the lighting looks cool?

I can tell you’ve been watching the same YouTubers as me... I would guess Nigel Danson? It’s become a bit of a ‘thing’ for the advice to new photographers being that a good image has to tell a story. So they’ll take a photo of like, a waterfall and crowbar in a ‘story’ of how maybe there was some rain recently. That’s not an image telling a story! What they mean is that creating images with an element of mystery, that makes he viewer wonder that has happened or what’s going to happen is an ingredient for a more compelling image. Not all images need this element. Some can just be aesthetically beautiful images. Some genres are more conducive to ‘story telling’ e.g. street photography. Also wildlife photography often has great examples of ‘stories’. But for me, trying to get a story out of a landscape image is difficult - sometime it might happen - but don’t get hung up in the idea that an image needs a ‘story’ to have merit.

 

[LeeRatters]

I can tell you’ve been watching the same YouTubers as me... I would guess Nigel Danson? It’s become a bit of a ‘thing’ for the advice to new photographers being that a good image has to tell a story. So they’ll take a photo of like, a waterfall and crowbar in a ‘story’ of how maybe there was some rain recently. That’s not an image telling a story! What they mean is that creating images with an element of mystery, that makes he viewer wonder that has happened or what’s going to happen is an ingredient for a more compelling image. Not all images need this element. Some can just be aesthetically beautiful images. Some genres are more conducive to ‘story telling’ e.g. street photography. Also wildlife photography often has great examples of ‘stories’. But for me, trying to get a story out of a landscape image is difficult - sometime it might happen - but don’t get hung up in the idea that an image needs a ‘story’ to have merit.

Nigel Danson...! Eeekk!

I mostly love his photography but his vlogs have gone so..... 'technical'...? Do, don't, top tips, etc etc Just go out shooting images and take us along for the ride.

 

[TheBigYin]

It's taken me about 4yrs to find my real photography genra. In that time I've taken photos of most things and all of them have helped me find out what does and does not float my boat. They don't all tell a story and that's fine. My macro stuff, mainly insects and flowers, are because they interest me. They don't really tell a story, but they nice to look at (well to me anyway).
My main photography genre is still life, it's the one I put the most effort into. They also don't always have a story as such, but I try to make/give them a feeling of nostalgia or interest, something you want to look at, something that makes you feel you're in that place with the photo. Now I don't know if that's a story or an emotion.

This pretty much sums up my approach to shooting stuff, and is probably why I enjoy your still life work a great deal. For your Macro work, substitute any of my outdoors stuff - I pretty much don't shoot people these days unless they're unavoidable in an outdoors composition, so i'm not working to make a story about them, it really is pretty much all about the aesthetic and composition and light and all the stuff that hopefully makes something pleasing to my eye. That may not be the same for anyone elses eye - but, I'm realistic enough to realise that my tastes don't differ too far from the mainstream that it'll offend many, so pleasing myself is good enough to satisfy a good few others too...

Now, when it comes to still life stuff - that's a different matter. I genuinely start with a blank sheet of paper, perhaps some items/sources of inspiration and draft a first sketch of an idea - all the while I'm building a story for it in my head. As the story becomes more fully fledged, the sketch gets scrapped and I almost draw a full-on "storyboard" representation of the "key frame" from that little short story - the idea IS that what I eventually take as a photo will BE that key-frame from the movie... Yes, it's an awfully "cinematic" way of visualising and thinking about taking a picture of an essentially completely static subject, maybe i'm actually wishing that I'd gone down a completely different path and ended up as a Film Director or Director of Cinematography in the film industry, and i'm "making do" with a single still frame image... I don't know - that's something that would probably take years of time with a shrink to get to the bottom of - but - it doesn't change the fact that for me, anything I will "publish" as a still life has gone through the above process, and for me has a definite story.

Of course, the problem with making pictures that are intended to tell a story is that you can't guarantee that they will tell the same story (or any story for that matter) to everyone else... Everyone puts their own "mental spin" on things - like the guy in the Foundry - someone gets "loneliness and sadness" - i got a sense of commitment, pride and the serenity that comes with doing a job you love. You can't script anyone else's narratives. We've had people on here take TFP photos of Models, dressed in mini skirts and leather jackets, shot in back alleyways... When questioned if the model was happy with the way they'd portrayed them they had genuinely not even thought of the fact that to certain mental narratives they'd made the model look like she was "of easy repute" let us say... When shooting people (especially people you know and will interact with later) , it's always a reasonable idea to consider how they're going to see themselves as being portrayed. Saves many a heated conversation later .

 

[Lensflare]

I can tell you’ve been watching the same YouTubers as me... I would guess Nigel Danson? It’s become a bit of a ‘thing’ for the advice to new photographers being that a good image has to tell a story. So they’ll take a photo of like, a waterfall and crowbar in a ‘story’ of how maybe there was some rain recently. That’s not an image telling a story! What they mean is that creating images with an element of mystery, that makes he viewer wonder that has happened or what’s going to happen is an ingredient for a more compelling image. Not all images need this element. Some can just be aesthetically beautiful images. Some genres are more conducive to ‘story telling’ e.g. street photography. Also wildlife photography often has great examples of ‘stories’. But for me, trying to get a story out of a landscape image is difficult - sometime it might happen - but don’t get hung up in the idea that an image needs a ‘story’ to have merit.

If the picture needs explaining, it has failed!

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

If the picture needs explaining, it has failed!

Sorry Simon, can you expand? Not sure I understood your comment in relation to the text you quoted

 

[Harlequin565]

Sorry Simon, can you expand? Not sure I understood your comment in relation to the text you quoted

I think Simon is coming from a photojournalism point of view which is probably the opposite end of the photographic spectrum to Nigel Danson's pretty landscape photos. Much of the YouTube crowd (esp landscape photographers) are making what I'd call "decor". Pretty things that make a blank wall look less blank. Don't forget that their objective is to get more subs/likes because that = more income. Photographs can be taken for a myriad of different reasons and a "story" could mean very different things depending on who you ask. Both a fantasy fiction author and a news journalist are responsible for making stories - but they are very different things when presented to an "average" audience. The same goes for photography.

Looking at the various responses on this thread alone, it's clear to see that people have interpreted the OP's word "story" in different ways.

(Edit to apologise to Simon if I misinterpreted)

 

[DemiLion]

If the picture needs explaining, it has failed!

If we take press photography there are three basic types of image:

Stand alone.

Headline.

Support.

Examples of the first are Guardian Eyewitness and the Picture of the Day in The Times (usually P8 or so). They are photographs for photography's sake.

Examples of the second are the Front, Back and most page leads - designed to draw a reader into the written story.

Examples of the third are any photograph that supports the story, almost like a graphic. For example an exterior of a house in a story about burglary or a reference headshot.

Strangely they all usually appear to be captioned.

 

[Lensflare]

Sorry Simon, can you expand? Not sure I understood your comment in relation to the text you quoted

Very simple. If you take a picture of a weird scenario and people have to ask what it is about then the picture has not done its job. Sometimes you want a picture to get people to ask questions, or to get the viewer to think, but if the contents are so disjointed they don't actually tell a story then the picture hasn't worked. The crowbar and waterfall example - if you have to explain the relationship then the picture has not done its job. There are many good pictures that are really stunning artistically and the viewer doesn't even need to know what the subject is to like the image, or be moved by it... I am thinking microscope pictures of pretty patterns where reagents have created abstract art in colour - you would need to be a medical or scientific person to know what the subject is, but the 'prettiness' is there for all to see and admire without actually knowing what the subject is.

 

[Lensflare]

I think Simon is coming from a photojournalism point of view which is probably the opposite end of the photographic spectrum to Nigel Danson's pretty landscape photos. Much of the YouTube crowd (esp landscape photographers) are making what I'd call "decor". Pretty things that make a blank wall look less blank. Don't forget that their objective is to get more subs/likes because that = more income. Photographs can be taken for a myriad of different reasons and a "story" could mean very different things depending on who you ask. Both a fantasy fiction author and a news journalist are responsible for making stories - but they are very different things when presented to an "average" audience. The same goes for photography.

Looking at the various responses on this thread alone, it's clear to see that people have interpreted the OP's word "story" in different ways.

(Edit to apologise to Simon if I misinterpreted)

Good effort!

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

I think Simon is coming from a photojournalism point of view which is probably the opposite end of the photographic spectrum to Nigel Danson's pretty landscape photos. Much of the YouTube crowd (esp landscape photographers) are making what I'd call "decor". Pretty things that make a blank wall look less blank. Don't forget that their objective is to get more subs/likes because that = more income. Photographs can be taken for a myriad of different reasons and a "story" could mean very different things depending on who you ask. Both a fantasy fiction author and a news journalist are responsible for making stories - but they are very different things when presented to an "average" audience. The same goes for photography.

Looking at the various responses on this thread alone, it's clear to see that people have interpreted the OP's word "story" in different ways.

(Edit to apologise to Simon if I misinterpreted)

Yes, I think OP's question has been interpreted differently! Since he has only been taking photos since the summer it's probably fair to assume he's not a photojournalist and more of the Danson bent (I only use Danson as an example because he always harps on about stories).

Ian, going back to you point about 'decor' vs photojournalism, I would add another line, which is the photography of people like Simon Roberts or John Davies - definitely on the art side of the art/journalism divide, but definitely not decor either. They're making social commentary through their art, rather than pretty pictures. I suppose you could say there is a 'story' behind their work, in that they are not just beautiful scenes. I do have to hold my hands up here and admit that what I aim for is nothing more than something to fill a space on a wall

[edit] re Simon Roberts, he's selling photos of clouds for £1,900 so he's doing something rights...

 

[Harlequin565]

I do have to hold my hands up here and admit that what I aim for is nothing more than something to fill a space on a wall

No shame in this at all. And in six months or a year, you may feel completely different.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I do have to hold my hands up here and admit that what I aim for is nothing more than something to fill a space on a wall

TBH if people want to see my pictures on their wall then I am very happy with that.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

what does he cast?

 

[Merlin5]

I'm still reading this thread guys. Thanks for all the replies, fascinating stuff.

I can tell you’ve been watching the same YouTubers as me... I would guess Nigel Danson? It’s become a bit of a ‘thing’ for the advice to new photographers being that a good image has to tell a story. So they’ll take a photo of like, a waterfall and crowbar in a ‘story’ of how maybe there was some rain recently. That’s not an image telling a story! What they mean is that creating images with an element of mystery, that makes he viewer wonder that has happened or what’s going to happen is an ingredient for a more compelling image. Not all images need this element. Some can just be aesthetically beautiful images. Some genres are more conducive to ‘story telling’ e.g. street photography. Also wildlife photography often has great examples of ‘stories’. But for me, trying to get a story out of a landscape image is difficult - sometime it might happen - but don’t get hung up in the idea that an image needs a ‘story’ to have merit.

I had to look up Nigel Danson after you mentioned him and then realised I've seen a small handful of his videos. I quite like what he does. I think I first learned of the phrase hyperfocal distance from him.

But no, it wasn't from him, I've seen mention of photos needing to tell a story or at least have a meaning, by members of various forums, so figured it must be something I must include or else the photo would be pointless. But from this thread, I've learnt it's not compulsory.

That said, my recent little flirtation with street photography has shown me it's very interesting to capture an image that can make the viewer think about the subject or go "ooh that's pretty cool", like maybe a juxtaposition of two elements or some small sort of commentary.

The photo below by Joel Meyerowitz I really like. I've only just learnt about him and I'm sure the experienced members here are probably quite familiar with some of his work.

I don't think it tells a story or even has meaning, but it's a fascinating and clever image that has inspired me to try and capture similar. But I think it'll be quite difficult and a lot of luck involved. Very fortunate timing and coincidence of multiple and simultaneous instances of duplicate elements. Well, I'll go back on what I said, because the duplicate elements are what makes the photo appealing and so I suppose that is the meaning or reason for the image.

 

[myotis]

The photo below by Joel Meyerowitz I really like. I've only just learnt about him and I'm sure the experienced members here are probably quite familiar with some of his work.

There is a small but interesting book by Joel based on the course he does (which includes a couple of paragraphs about the photograph you posted):

The book

Joel Meyerowitz

The 'Masters of Photography' series is a new approach to photography how-to. Each volume is dedicated to the work of one key photographer who, through a series of bite-sized lessons and ideas, tells you everything you always wanted to know about their approach to taking photographs. From their...

www.laurenceking.com

The course

Online class — Joel Meyerowitz

www.joelmeyerowitz.com

As an aside, strictly speaking, for copyright reasons, I don't think you should have posted his photograph here without his permission ( I am assuming you didn't get it) there are some exceptions to this e.g. for educational use. etc which this fall under, but at the very least you should provide a URL to the source of the image. Obviously it was credited in your text

Exceptions to copyright

Details of the exceptions to copyright that allow limited use of copyright works without the permission of the copyright owner.

www.gov.uk

No doubt someone will come along with a more definitive comment on this, but thought it was worth mentioning.

 

[Harlequin565]

As an aside, strictly speaking, for copyright reasons, I don't think you should have posted his photograph here without his permission

I think the rules state that you should link to the location of the image if it's not yours. (Even though the OP is clearly using it for critical discussion and not trying to pass it off as their own)

But I think it'll be quite difficult and a lot of luck involved.

To be honest. The more pictures you take, and the more you practise, the luckier you'll find yourself getting.

 

[Ed Sutton]

There is a small but interesting book by Joel based on the course he does (which includes a couple of paragraphs about the photograph you posted):

The book

Joel Meyerowitz

The 'Masters of Photography' series is a new approach to photography how-to. Each volume is dedicated to the work of one key photographer who, through a series of bite-sized lessons and ideas, tells you everything you always wanted to know about their approach to taking photographs. From their...

www.laurenceking.com

Good little book that.

 

[Catherine Bowlene]

I don't think the image should tell a story, at least, not every single one. Sometimes a nice picture could be just a nice picture that captures a certain moment, but you still can tell your story by combining a bunch of photos into some smartshow 3d slideshow, so that it would look like a photo album. Albums may tell stories but some pictures may not and its fine. Landscapes, for example, don't have a lot of stories behind them and neither do many glamour shoots. Remember America's Next Top Model? They talked a lot about having a backstory behind the picture (and smiling with your eyes ) but in fact I struggled to see any story told by those nice fancy pictures of the participants

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

If the picture needs explaining, it has failed!

Tell that to a newspaper editor. Any informative picture needs words to provide the viewer with a a context.