Not Your Everyday Banana

by Bart Arondson

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Take the 2-minute tour ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

With video, it's pretty easy to evoke emotions. I've seen movies, short clips, music video, animations etc that gets so emotional it would make people cry. Is there something similar with photography? I guess it's exponentially more difficult with such one frame?

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 5 down vote accepted

Of course they can. They can change the world. Here's one that did both:

not much more to say

share|improve this answer
    
I can see this making softhearted people emotional, but how did it change the world? Seems there is a story to that. –  Michael Nielsen Jun 23 '13 at 6:51
9  
It was one of a few key images that turned the majority of the voting public in the U.S. against the war in Vietnam on the late 1960s. This in turn changed the course of the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. –  Michael Clark Jun 23 '13 at 11:10
1  
This image won't necessarily make everyone cry, but if it doesn't make you emotional in some way (no matter your political views!), I think it's time for some introspection on what exactly "softhearted" means. –  mattdm Jun 23 '13 at 15:43
1  
+1 A quick look at the world press photo award archives certainly provides a wealth of imagery, much of which is highly emotional. It is perhaps easier to evoke emotions in moving images than static ones but emotional connections that are easily made are equally easily broken. –  James Snell Jun 23 '13 at 16:37
    
accompanied with the story, it certainly helps. alone it just looks like some soldiers walking casually down a road with something burning in the background, escorting some seemingly set-up kids, who despite the casual soldiers look like they are running and screaming. But there are also a lot of political spin and money made from this picture which takes away from the emotional impact. I dont see why anyone would change their opinion on war from it - what did they think a war was like before seeing this...there are much more gruesome pics out there from warzones. –  Michael Nielsen Jun 24 '13 at 9:30
show 3 more comments

I think the advantage that you're seeing is that video has the opportunity to setup the context for the viewer that will later be used to evoke emotion that photos cannot do. For example, had I seen a single frame from the ending of the movie The Blind Side where he's being drafted I wouldn't care in the slightest, but after having seen the movie I knew the context and had a better idea of what it meant; it was more moving (figuratively) because of the backstory, not because that particular scene was moving (literally) and not frozen. If you know your audience it can be easier (in motion or stills) to evoke emotion from them.

I would imagine there are many crime scene photos that make the surviving families cry, many wedding photos that make widows/widowers, etc. I think that even if the photos were videos instead the impact would be the same because the context is the same.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.