Are captions a big deal?

The article written by David Snider gave a peek into the work of a photojournalist, but I still wonder how much information is needed to accompany a photo.

I felt that MOST of Snider's work stood alone, without captions, naming the location of the action--like Paris. One of these Paris shots in particular showed a waiter delivering a drink and glasses. I ASSUMED, however, that this was the subject and action, and a journalist shouldn’t make assumptions in delivering information.

When does the photographer cross the line from, as Snider writes, "a patient watcher of humanity," to a reporter needing the information for a story? Did he get permission from the parents of the young child in the Tompkins Square Park to use his photo? I assume he did—but oh wait, I shouldn’t.

I can see how the “shoot first, ask questions later” policy would be a good one in photography.

For example, I covered a musical event in downtown Columbia with a checked-out camera. I introduced myself to an artist right away and asked for his information and permission to shoot, which may have ruined my pictures. I got the feeling that the photos were not as spontaneous as they would have been if I had just been in the corner, ten feet away as Snider routinely was for his shots.

The compromise between the picture and the interactivity of the photojournalist is one I have yet to learn, but I think it will have a large impact on the photos that result from either observing action or getting in the middle of it.