I didn't want to skip over your well thought out comments so belatedly here is my response: Zhann, I agree and disagree with your reply. To be sure, I have delighted in how people have had new interps of my work or enjoyed the way that others' work could be seen from different angles so clearly there, we agree, subjectivity flows freely and there's no stopping it. But on the other hand, if you're an artist that at one moment wants to communicate something specific then the choices have to be less ambiguous if you don't want to create ambiguity. Or FW, if you're an illustrator and there is a client and a product, like a book or a cereal box, there will be definite goals that need to be conveyed. As an illustrator, you won't choose a style that will conflict with the message. You wil always be more than an objective organic camera. So Zhann, where I disagree is that the story isn't subjective. If it is the story of Tristan und Isolde then you have definite requirements to adhere to. Subjectively you could choose to represent that story of True Love with Lima beans and cigarette butts, however I don't think the Art Director is going to approve it for print. You never know. Where am I going with this? I think, originally, I just wanted to be clear that I love pictures that live on their own visual merit, no title, no explanation, no alterior motive other than to be seen and appreciated or not. They have a welcome right to exist in my universe. But, if one is asked to tell a story, then there are criteria that must be satisfied just like any other challenge that occurs in the Forums. So, FW, the question was what makes a picture tell a story. And it seems that Everyone agrees that any and every picture can tell a story if the viewer wants to see one or make it up themselves. And it's my belief and I think, Brendan, agrees with me, that if you're trying to tell a specific story, like a movie condensed into one frame, you need dramatic action described by a visual lexicon. Hey, how 'bout that Deep Texture Editor, eh?