Are captions always necessary? If a photo is self-explanatory, does the descriptive caption waste the reader's time?

I think captions are always necessary and it drives me crazy when an article doesn't have them!

If the picture is obviously self-explanatory, maybe that's an opportunity to give another piece of information relating to the story.

Vicki is exactly correct.

Also, the caption acts as an entry point into the article for the reader, moreso if you provide useful information in the caption, even if it is contained in the article itself. The caption might be the only thing that attracts a particular reader's attention. And,therefore, you've given the reader something to think about.

Besides that, how do you define self-explanatory? It might be to you, but not to someone else.

Be considerate of your readers. Put yourself in their shoes.

We always require captions. As Consultant & Vicki both said -- they may draw in more readers.

The only time we do NOT use a caption is where the photo is more of a background piece for an illustration or treatment.

I hate it when a caption merely relays what is happening in the photo or illustration in the simplest possible terms.

As others here have said, use a caption to draw additional readers in. Point out something interesting about the shape of the graph, why is that little spike there in the month of February (or whatever). Use your captions to further educate your reader, not rehash the same thing.

Amen! I agree with all of these posts...however, apparently most/all of the magazines I have worked on do not. I find that especially in news sections, with fairly short briefs, many chief editors think captions are a waste of space. I disagree, but it has been a losing battle. I think captions are necessary most of the time...another chance to add an interesting fact and draw readers into the story.

We made the call during a redesign in 2004 to go captionless. The only captions you'll find in Latin Trade are last names on images of interview subjects, and even then not in feature well.

What happens is, design begins to choose photos that stand alone or are "disconnected" from the subject, or are so imtimately clear they need no caption. So our magazine has a weirdly artsy, annual report-y feel in that the obscure stories about small business finance will have, say, an image of a shoe factory floor that could be anywhere but is clearly a small business, while an image of a proposed sex park in Rio is of the building (shaped like a giant sperm) but right on top of the actual story.

It works. I don't know why, but if you make the right choices, it works. We did this because we publish in three languages, and multiple captions in translation complicated design and edit flows. I get it, why people use them, but once you give them up, it's surprisingly easy to get over it and move on.

Like Greg my pub regularly runs images without captions. And our headshots run only with the name of the person.

First I think that running a caption describing what clearly in the shot is a waste of energy and pollution of the visual space.

Second I agree it frees the art/design dept to use more artistic images.

Of course I come from an illustration background, so it's always been my goal to keep editorials words off my images.

I have a similar struggle at times, to keep design elements out from under words. They somemtimes try to run fine circles under the text. The letters begin to look like flies stuck to flypaper.