Stephen Shore's Book Isn't What Most People Think It Is
The Nature Of Photographs by Stephen Shore is a dense, genuinely difficult book that most photographers glaze over halfway through. I picked it up around 2015 expecting some inspirational color plates and ended up spending three weeks with it because Shore actually breaks apart the mechanics of what makes a photograph a photograph. He does it by comparing the medium to painting and drawing, showing where they diverge and why that divergence matters for anyone who takes pictures seriously. Shore's central argument is that photography isn't painting with light and it isn't drawing with light either. He traces this back through early photographic history, looking at pictorialism and how painters tried to make photos look like paintings, then moves into how photography establishes its own unique ontology. The section where he compares a photograph to a painting side by side is where it clicks. He shows that a painting is an object made of material — paint on canvas — while a photograph is a trace, an indexical record where light physically interacted with a surface. That distinction matters more than people realize. He also dismantles the assumption that lenses are transparent windows onto reality. Shore walks through the physics and optics of what actually happens inside a camera, explaining depth of field, focus, and perspective in ways that most photography books skip entirely. You'll find yourself going back to check your own understanding after reading those sections.
One thing beginners consistently miss is that Shore is not giving you a method. He's giving you a framework for looking. There are no step-by-step instructions. I remember sitting in my apartment with the 2007 revised edition open to his color diagrams, trying to map his ideas onto my own workflow, and realizing I'd spent years making technical decisions without understanding why those decisions mattered. It was uncomfortable but necessary.
How This Actually Changes Your Work
After working through Shore's arguments, I started paying attention to something I'd been ignoring: the relationship between subject and support. Shore spends a considerable amount of time on this, and it was the part that hit hardest for me. When he talks about the support — the paper, the print surface, the physical object the image lives on — most people brush past it because it feels abstract. It's not. I ran into a specific problem when I was preparing a body of work for a gallery submission. I had printed series on different papers without really thinking about why. Shore's discussion of support made me realize my color temperatures were clashing across the room because I hadn't matched the paper stock to the images. I switched everything to an eggshell finish instead of the glossy I'd been using, and the whole show felt coherent. That single practical adjustment came directly from reading Shore. Not all of his insights land that way, but that one did. There's a chapter on the negative that is worth your time even if you shoot digital. Shore argues that the negative is the photograph, not the positive print. This is a genuinely counter-intuitive point that most photographers disagree with on instinct. He's not wrong, and working through his logic changes how you think about the entire chain from capture to print.
Get the Full Details
Where Shore Falls Short
The book has real limitations that you should be aware of before committing to it. Shore's examples are almost entirely rooted in American landscape and street photography from the 1960s through the 1980s. If your work lives in portraiture, documentary, or fine art contexts outside that tradition, you'll find yourself bridging gaps between his examples and your own practice. That's not a flaw in Shore's reasoning, but it is a gap in his coverage. His treatment of digital photography is also thin. The revised edition added some material, but the core framework was built for analog processes. When Shore discusses the negative as the photograph, the logic holds in digital workflows only if you're comfortable extending the concept to the raw file as your negative equivalent. It works, but you have to do that extension yourself. The book won't hand it to you. Another honest limitation: the prose is dry and academic. You will lose people who expect the lyrical accessibility of someone like Susan Sontag or John Berger. Shore writes like a professor who'd rather be in a darkroom than at a keyboard. That's not a criticism, it's a warning. If you need narrative momentum to stay engaged, this book will test your patience.
What To Read After Shore
If Shore opens the door for you, Roland Barthes's Camera Lucida will deepen the emotional side of your engagement with the medium, though it's less technical. W. J. T. Mitchell's Picture Theory tackles photography from a visual culture angle that Shore doesn't address. For the optical side Shore hints at but doesn't fully develop, look into Dennis Freedman's work on the history of the camera obscura. The 2007 revised edition from Princeton University Press is the one to get. It includes additional essays and updated color plates that Shore himself considered essential. The original 1986 edition is cheaper on the used market, but you'll want the revision for the supplementary material on support and the expanded color plates. The ISBN for the revised edition is 978-0691136086. It's available through most academic retailers and major booksellers at around $45 for the paperback.
