On the other hand, I'd never agree with Garry or anybody else that no photograph has narrative ability. Maybe I only see the narrative here because I was there, but I don't think that's the reason.
The "narrative ability" is in the mind of the viewer (and also of the artist, although that is another story).
The mind looks for stories, in the world around it and in images whether they be paintings, drawings or photographs. This probably starts with sociobiology - there is obvious survival value in detecting stories which include threats or possible advantages. But then nurture and culture take over - we know that images sometimes tell stories so we look for them and we have available a rich repertoire of possible stories, whether they be religious as in much of western painting, sexual as in a some street photography, or in a broad sense political, as (to my mind) in Russ's fine image.
Of course the mind doesn't always find much of a story and that isn't necessarily a problem. The mind also looks for formal elements (beauty, if you like). There may also be a sociobiological context for that, to do with sexual selection, although I find such arguments a bit thin, and nurture and culture are certainly in play. I find mostly formal qualities in Siegfried Hansen's fine work, although there is an underlying story about the urban environment, and the lovely visual pun in the homepage image is a kind of story. I would argue that there is always a kind of story in the experienced image because the mind is so assiduous in looking for one. The ghosts of landscape which many people perceive in abstract painting are cases in point. And sometimes the story is the absence of story.
I am stretching the definition of "story" in this line of argument but I would argue that it is a legitimate stretch. For example, current thinking about landscape has it that there is an underlying "story" in all images of landscape, whether it be about wilderness, or gardens, or the inside and the outside, or danger, or power, or the human and the non-human. Stories don't have to have a lot of detail. Maybe "content" is a better word.
What I have said about the mind of the viewer applies, mutatis mutandis, to the mind of the artist.