I was meeting some photographer friends a while ago and the discussion came up on whether a photograph is better with or without a description.
One argument is that a description (or caption if you prefer) lets the viewer know more about what the artist intended. It also gives context to the image. Some people like to know what they are looking at. Photojournalism relies on captions to give the background, or at least the location of the photo. This extra information can make a shot change from a mediocre shot to an extraordinary shot.
I like this portrait I took in College, but do you read it differently if I say her boyfriend just committed suicide? Does that bit of information matter?
On the other hand, sometimes it is nicer to make up your own stories, and interpret the image as it speaks to you. A caption is not needed, and may even be detrimental.
This is a study in abstract, but once you are told it is some fall reflections in a stream, is it still as intriguing?
I guess it comes down to what your photo is saying. Is it a visual treat, or a record of an event? Most good photos are both, and it is yet another decision of the artist on how to describe the image, or not…
