Photographs are not only witnesses to the scenes that they depict but are also witnesses to the behaviour of photographers, showing us where they have been and, perhaps, what counted for them.. 

In the Brechtian tradition, the caption has priority in critical photographic practice. Sometimes, though, doesn't the photograph hold facts that the caption lacks? Can the image bring doubt on the text? 

My interest in photography and facts is rooted in Tretiakov's statement that "the photo series or photomontage lets us experience the extended massiveness of reality" and Esfir Shub's "cinema of fact".

How photographers depict their subjects and what they say or write about them seem to always run the risk of bias, prejudice and subjective deviation from the truth, but these are part of the truth.

Facts are not natural, they are produced. But facts can't be produced willy-nilly. If photographs are factual in some way, this is because they are produced alongside the production of facts.