I assumed the caption was what was written on the back of the photo -- no?

If it was, that's different (and funny, if the woman wrote it about herself). It didn't read to me like it was.

---

(and funny, if the woman wrote it about herself).

Yeah, that was my assumption.

---

I'd automatically assumed she'd written it; it has the sort of sharp-sour self-deprecation women in this society are taught to whip themselves with.

---

I don't think any of the captions come from anywhere but the photos themselves.

---

To submit a photo, you send a jpeg (or whatever) attachment in email. If a caption is submitted, it's submitted by the person who sent the photo.

---

See, there's a story in and of itself. Another layer on the question of how much you can trust anything you're/we're told.

Because we have no way of knowing whether any of these captions are real, then, do we? Whether they could be written on the back of the original, or added by the sender? And even if written on the back of the original, no way of knowing who wrote it.

So there's a whole deeper level to it: the captions. Because something as innocuous as "Sammy, Lucy and Chris, Manhattan Beach, 1933" could be completely inaccurate, in all innocence or by malice. What would the story be behind that?

Not going to tackle that one - hell, I just did, in all four Haunted Ballads novels, since that's the big underlying theme, apparently - but the question is one I find fascinating.

---

Too true, deb. I think #4 is an interesting picture, but the caption blocks me from really being able to write something. Not that I've written on any of them so far, but it makes that one that much harder.

---

See, I don't even look at the captions, generally; I keep forgetting to, especially if the background composition of the photo shows me something obvious. I just go with the visual.

But photo captions as spin, or deliberate obfuscation? This is why I never believe a news story. One person's take is simply not possibly a full or balanced look at anything, is it?

---

To submit a photo, you send a jpeg (or whatever) attachment in email. If a caption is submitted, it's submitted by the person who sent the photo.

Huh. I was pretty sure that any captions are only what was written on the photos themselves. From the website: "When you click "Send your Photos" your email program will open, please, enter your name and any text written on the back of the photo."

---

See, there's a story in and of itself. Another layer on the question of how much you can trust anything you're/we're told.

Because we have no way of knowing whether any of these captions are real, then, do we? Whether they could be written on the back of the original, or added by the sender? And even if written on the back of the original, no way of knowing who wrote it.

Yes. That's true. It always makes me feel a little inhibited at first. I have to push to write something when we do these entries. I usually go personal to my own life or family, I think I feel like it's a silent payback to whoever's face inspired me.

Huh. I was pretty sure that any captions are only what was written on the photos themselves. From the website: "When you click "Send your Photos" your email program will open, please, enter your name and any text written on the back of the photo."

Right, so anyone could enter anything, I think. To be fair, the other photos entered by "Julie B" of Austin haven't (that I've noticed) had any odd comments, so maybe that caption really was written on the back of that photo.

I tend to notice that submitter, because I know a Julie B, from Austin (although I doubt it's the same one, it could be).

---