The NEGATIVE thread

[Reinardina]

How to get a lively thread?

As I said in my answer to Mick's post under the 'Shoutbox' heading (http://cameracraniums.com/forum/index.php?topic=4699.msg54332;topicseen#new), the only threads that are 'alive,' seem to be the negative ones, where people get upset.

I suggested a 'favourite hate' topic, in the hope it can be negative enough to attract attention , without being personal.
No religion, sex or politics, and preferably image related.

I shall start it off, with one of my personal favourite hates: Photos without titles, or descriptions.

I like to know what I am looking at, and where I can find it. A title often helps, a short description will make it even better.
Even it the photographer wants to keep the location secret, it must be possible to find a title.

[DigiDiva]

I sometimes think it's hard to think of a quirky title for an image. I know a simple title works too but it's getting it right. For example if you take a picture of a woman in a red hat you can call it "Woman in a red hat" which works well but what if you take another image of a woman in a red hat. Would this be called "another woman in a red hat". But if it is an image of a woman in a red hat why call it that, when it's obvious? A quirkier title like "the statement hat" for me would be better. I do usually try to name mine. Sometimes though I just can't think of one.

We could ask others for a title if we struggle. Maybe a thread simply called "name this image" might work.

[Alfonso_Frisk]

Should be a feature where you can not complete the upload until valid fields like title and description are filled in.
Not sure if there is a code for this Mick?

[Reinardina]

A cow in a field, is a cow in a field, but I still would like to know where I can find that cow and that field.

If you have a series of women in red hats, you can simply call them 'Woman in red Hat 1,2,3 etcetera.'  Or you can be more descriptive of the type of hat, hair colour, facial expression, whatever you can think of.
And I would love to know where she was photographed. Not necessarily in great detail, like time and place, but something like 'shopping,' or 'at art exhibition,' 'waiting for train' etc.

[anglefire]

I've stopped doing it largely, and that is boarders on pictures - I think it often lifts an image from the ordinary. Similar to names to be fair.

Must start doing frames again (I think I've stopped because of lightroom, though it a poor excuse given the print module!)

[StephenBatey]

I'll start with a moan then. THIS RUDDY (since you've been discussing red hats  ) THREAD TITLE. Here I was getting all excited about a thread devoted to film photography, and what do I find?

Disgusted of Hove.

On the subject of titles, I used to try but gave up after a photograph of mine titled "Brimham Rocks" for no other reason than it was taken at that location was criticised for its title because the rocks themselves did not figure in it. After that, I simply used the negative number from my filing system, and if people think that "LF01-0042" is a meaningfully obscure arty title, fine. To me, it's a reference number.

I'm ambivalent on titles. If I want to know where a place is out of curiosity, fine, they help. If they only serve to explain what the image should have made clear by itself, but doesn't, then they're a crutch to a weak image that can't stand alone. In a few (rare) cases, they can serve to indicate how an ambiguous image should be read by providing a pointer.

On the images that I've posted with titles, the titles aren't very helpful. A map of Scotland will indicate that "Sound of Arisaig", "Glen Nevis" or "Glen Etive" may be geographically descriptive but fall far short of indicating to within 20 miles exactly where I was standing.

Edit to add: my pet hate is HDR and other obvious manipulations whose only "merit" is to attempt to disguise a poor photograph as a painting. I have yet to see an example where I think it improved the result, and most of the justifications are special pleading. Is that strong enough? And yes, I am serious about it.

[David Blandford]

For my ten pence worth when it comes to titles I tend to struggle to come up with names which are relevant or interesting and end of with a bland pointless one instead. Sometimes I try an amusing title but this only seems to show what a strange sense of humour I have!  However I must agree it is good when an brief description is added because it can be good to know the location or what is actually happening.     

[Mick]

Should be a feature where you can not complete the upload until valid fields like title and description are filled in.
Not sure if there is a code for this Mick?

Not a bad idea.  There used to be a work around for this in a older version of the gallery software, but even that was manually coded in.  Unfortunately this doesn't work with the current version.  I'm going to check to see if it's been added to the next major release which we are working on.  If it hasn't I'll suggest it and see what happens.

[Reinardina]

Here an example. An image by Kevin, without title or description.
What is it, and where is it? I'd like to know, but I am totally in the dark.



Is it a miniature landscape somewhere, or taken from a high pov?

[David Blandford]

Here an example. An image by Kevin, without title or description.
What is it, and where is it? I'd like to know, but I am totally in the dark.



Is it a miniature landscape somewhere, or taken from a high pov?

I can understand your frustration Reindardina, this shot does leave you wanting to know more!

[StephenBatey]

Isn't that perhaps a good thing? It makes you think in ways that it wouldn't if you knew. Would knowing make it a better image, and if so, exactly why? Should imagination play any part in our viewing?

[Reinardina]

No and no.
Imagination can play a part, but this picture does not 'grab me by the throat,' and if I knew what I was looking at, I might find it more interesting.

[Beaux Reflets]

I am not really bothered by the lack of a title or any explanation about a photograph; Simply because photographs speak for themselves.

Those that do not grab my attention are not necessarily mundane in themselves, but for a variety of reasons may perhaps become pigeon holed as being run of the mill shots or images, and giving them all the spin in the world makes little difference upon my opinion of their merit or worth.

[Reinardina]

I would not normally have clicked on the thumbnail of this image, as it did not speak to me at all. Had it had a title, I might have been curious to see what it was about.

With a full blown photograph, you see what you get, with a thumbnail it becomes much more difficult. For me anyway.

[Simple]

I understand where you are coming from, but surely in photography the picture should grab your attention and not the title. If the picture does not grab you it is most likely not worthy of your attention.
But I do get your point. If you put two identical pictures up, but one has the title "naked girl in street", you will find that it get more looks than the picture without title. However if you call the picture "butterfly", I do not think it would make much more than the other unnamed picture.