TITLES

[ABERS]

I spent somrtime yesterday thinking of titles for a series of prints that I've been doing and it crossed my mind what are your views regarding titles?

Are they necessary? Do they add to or detract from a picture?

When you post an image is it to inform about a place, a thing or convey a feeling that you had when you took it?

Are there images that definitely need a title like record shots or natural history, flower shots?

Can you get away with Landscape #1 #2 #3 etc, if not why not?

Is it really important to title an image "Beach at Sunrise" when it's patently obvious it's been taken on a beach at sunrise. I suppose the fact that sunrise let's us know it was in the morning rather than evening. 

There's an ongoing joke at our club. One particular member who admits to being a mediocre photographer, says he will always be remembered as the bloke who took cr*p pictures, but his titles were fantastic!

How do you arrive at your titles?

[greypoint]

Usually the reason I put titles on pictures on line is because it makes it easier to refer to them. If they're record shots then the title is just to tell those who were'nt there what's being shown and the context - which may not be readily apparent. Fun titles for fun pictures is another matter - sometimes a picture cries out for a funny or ironic title.

[Hinfrance]

My titles are usually descriptive, even obviously so, in order that I can find the images I want. Especially useful if I have forgotten to put tags/keywords with them, which is a regular omission on my part.

[hevans]

Titles are mostly useful when you need to refer to a photo in a textual form, e.g. on these forums. Saying "I like the 3rd photo in your gallery" is tad ambiguous, whereas saying "I like your 'Beach sunset' photo." is a more readily communicative. While you could refer back to the DSC_42322.jpg name, it's not as descriptive, nor memorable as a title.

So, yes, a title is quite useful when you don't have the original image available to display and want to refer to it in a medium that is not visual.

A prime example is the prat "Prince", or the "artist formerly known as Prince."

As to whether they add to the visual representation of a photo, not really. But what I find very interesting is a description about where the place is, how it was found, what was the event, etc. This helps to set the photo in a context.

H.

[Hybridphotog]

I spent somrtime yesterday thinking of titles for a series of prints that I've been doing and it crossed my mind what are your views regarding titles?

Are they necessary? Do they add to or detract from a picture?

I know that some judges prefer titles to be meaningful to the print/slide.

When you post an image is it to inform about a place, a thing or convey a feeling that you had when you took it?

Are there images that definitely need a title like record shots or natural history, flower shots?

Can you get away with Landscape #1 #2 #3 etc, if not why not?

Yep, sometimes. Obviously, it depends on the photo. If there's a mood or feeling that a scene triggered within me, I'll include that somewhere in the title. An example of mine would be the recent photo of a graffiti-scrawled phone booth, and it was titled "Thoughts, emotions, opinions". Other than that, my photos end up as "Flower #1", or "Beach hut #3", etc.

If I'm really struggling for a title, the photo becomes "Unnamed #"whatever.

How do you arrive at your titles?

Not easily.