Black
Photographer.
I've enjoyed looking through the images on the street forum over the last few days. Some really nice stuff. Whilst doing so, however, noticing the titles with some of the images, I have wondered "Did this image need this title?".
I'm always drawn in by the content first, perhaps the composition second (this is fluff, you understand - doesn't really matter what order something draws you in by, so long as you are drawn in), but the title is usually an after thought.
I used to spend a while thinking of clever little titles for my tiny portfolio, then I kind of regressed to basic, descriptive titles (as you might apply to stock images) but mostly now, they are simply numeric and sequential.
My thinking is that, when I post an images that I like, for whatever reason, but there's in nothing overly complex or remarkable about it (and this happens quite often in my case!) but there may be an element that I connect with - be it geometry or a certain texture etc, in creating a title, am I attempting to make the actual image into something that it is not?
Take for example, this shot:
1024) {this.width=1024;this.alt='Click here to see a large version';}" onmouseover="if(this.alt) this.style.cursor='pointer';" onclick="if(this.alt) window.open('https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3836/14668850922_98e32941dc_c.jpg');" border="0">
Its a guy, walking down the street with his hood up, at night. Its really kind of generic, but I left it in my stream simply because the shadow that hides the upper half of his face. The image is "untitled", but would it have more impact if I had chosen a title implying something sinister?
And this:
1024) {this.width=1024;this.alt='Click here to see a large version';}" onmouseover="if(this.alt) this.style.cursor='pointer';" onclick="if(this.alt) window.open('https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7380/11115228053_76f2d4a63b_c.jpg');" border="0">
Certainly not the most popular of my images. I shoe horned in the title "Sometimes My Legs Bend Backwards". But does that title make it any more or less effective?
What do you think?
I'm always drawn in by the content first, perhaps the composition second (this is fluff, you understand - doesn't really matter what order something draws you in by, so long as you are drawn in), but the title is usually an after thought.
I used to spend a while thinking of clever little titles for my tiny portfolio, then I kind of regressed to basic, descriptive titles (as you might apply to stock images) but mostly now, they are simply numeric and sequential.
My thinking is that, when I post an images that I like, for whatever reason, but there's in nothing overly complex or remarkable about it (and this happens quite often in my case!) but there may be an element that I connect with - be it geometry or a certain texture etc, in creating a title, am I attempting to make the actual image into something that it is not?
Take for example, this shot:
1024) {this.width=1024;this.alt='Click here to see a large version';}" onmouseover="if(this.alt) this.style.cursor='pointer';" onclick="if(this.alt) window.open('https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3836/14668850922_98e32941dc_c.jpg');" border="0">Its a guy, walking down the street with his hood up, at night. Its really kind of generic, but I left it in my stream simply because the shadow that hides the upper half of his face. The image is "untitled", but would it have more impact if I had chosen a title implying something sinister?
And this:
1024) {this.width=1024;this.alt='Click here to see a large version';}" onmouseover="if(this.alt) this.style.cursor='pointer';" onclick="if(this.alt) window.open('https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7380/11115228053_76f2d4a63b_c.jpg');" border="0">Certainly not the most popular of my images. I shoe horned in the title "Sometimes My Legs Bend Backwards". But does that title make it any more or less effective?
What do you think?
Last edited:
Ranchu
-
In general I think titles are a distraction, unless it's a name.
kossi008
Photon Counter
I don't really think a title makes a picture more or less effective. To me, titles are afterthoughts. Nevertheless, I do try to convey my associations when titling my pictures. Sometimes, I guess I go overboard, but is this diminishing the effect of the picture? Nah...
For what it's worth, I would have titled your pictures "Alone" and "Parallel Universe", respectively.
For what it's worth, I would have titled your pictures "Alone" and "Parallel Universe", respectively.
lynnb
Mentor
My feeling is that a good title usually makes a difference (in a good way) - but thinking of a good title is an art form (and one I've not mastered).
A title affects the way a viewer perceives the photo. It's a great opportunity to influence that perception. Sometimes it can lift an otherwise unremarkable photo into something more memorable.
I think in your first photo, in the absence of any other ideas, a title like "N.Y. Nights" (or wherever it was taken) might be sufficient, and better than no title.
I'm personally not enthused by your suggested title for the second picture, but am unable at present to come up with any better suggestions.
BTW you might be interested in this survey - see comments about titling.
I hope this helps!
A title affects the way a viewer perceives the photo. It's a great opportunity to influence that perception. Sometimes it can lift an otherwise unremarkable photo into something more memorable.
I think in your first photo, in the absence of any other ideas, a title like "N.Y. Nights" (or wherever it was taken) might be sufficient, and better than no title.
I'm personally not enthused by your suggested title for the second picture, but am unable at present to come up with any better suggestions.
BTW you might be interested in this survey - see comments about titling.
I hope this helps!
Black
Photographer.
I am personally leaning towards just having reference numbers for myself as the title - meaningless to anyone else. They probably don't even need to be in the title, but that's just me being lazy with cataloguing.
I think I agree with Ranchu's suggestion that they are an after thought. When I thumb through Ackerman's Half Life, or Petersen's Rome, am I missing out because the images are untitled? No, I don't think so. Would I think that I am being spoon fed something that might sound trite or forced if a title was provided? Possibly?
As is everything with photography, I guess I already know that the issue of titling is subjective, but I suppose I considered this thread a kind of straw poll. I'm genuinely curious as to what the masses think.
Oh, and the "Legs Bend Backwards" title was a must for me, as I'm a huge Twin Peaks geek.
edit: Lynn, thanks for your response. As I'm primarily a people photographer (perhaps less so, these days) the image was always going to be about the subject and not about the environment. I left it untitled because I feel that if I had have come up with a title I would be deliberately steering any viewer to a mindset, when I feel it is arguably better to leave someone with more questions than answers. They may spend ten seconds (if that) deliberating the image and then dismissing it. But I think I'd rather have that as, well, I don't really know how to put it, - but I think it provides a more "honest" appraisal of it?
I think I agree with Ranchu's suggestion that they are an after thought. When I thumb through Ackerman's Half Life, or Petersen's Rome, am I missing out because the images are untitled? No, I don't think so. Would I think that I am being spoon fed something that might sound trite or forced if a title was provided? Possibly?
As is everything with photography, I guess I already know that the issue of titling is subjective, but I suppose I considered this thread a kind of straw poll. I'm genuinely curious as to what the masses think.
Oh, and the "Legs Bend Backwards" title was a must for me, as I'm a huge Twin Peaks geek.
edit: Lynn, thanks for your response. As I'm primarily a people photographer (perhaps less so, these days) the image was always going to be about the subject and not about the environment. I left it untitled because I feel that if I had have come up with a title I would be deliberately steering any viewer to a mindset, when I feel it is arguably better to leave someone with more questions than answers. They may spend ten seconds (if that) deliberating the image and then dismissing it. But I think I'd rather have that as, well, I don't really know how to put it, - but I think it provides a more "honest" appraisal of it?
Harry S.
Well-known
I've noticed that Todd Hido http://www.toddhido.com/ catalogs his photos and gives them a practical title such as "#1928a".
In the book he co-authored for Aperture, he goes on to write that he just shoots a lot of pictures not really thinking about projects, but to form a large catalog that photographs can be selected from to form stories. I like this approach because ultimately it lets the pictures tell the story rather than the title.
I personally find if I see a photo with a tasteless title it makes me think less of the work itself.
In the book he co-authored for Aperture, he goes on to write that he just shoots a lot of pictures not really thinking about projects, but to form a large catalog that photographs can be selected from to form stories. I like this approach because ultimately it lets the pictures tell the story rather than the title.
I personally find if I see a photo with a tasteless title it makes me think less of the work itself.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
LOL ... I initially read the thread title as 'tilting' images.
Now I have to go away and rethink my response!
Now I have to go away and rethink my response!
Sparrow
Mentor
LOL ... I initially read the thread title as 'tilting' images.
Now I have to go away and rethink my response!
... that's weird ... after looking at the first photo for a bit I thought to myself 'well Chris it's not tilting as much as some of your stuff'
Black
Photographer.
Harry,
Its a coincidence that you cited Hido as an example, because he was exactly the photographer who's cataloguing influenced me to remove the "reigns" of titling.
I completely agree with your view on titling. Although, its probably a bit sad that I've thought about it this much
Black
Photographer.
... that's weird ... after looking at the first photo for a bit I thought to myself 'well Chris it's not tilting as much as some of your stuff'
*reviews entire portfolio*
RichC
Well-known
I approach titling my photographs no differently from anything to do with my images: will titles add to what I am attempting to communicate? In short, I never depict anything (composition, subject matter, etc.) or do anything (titles, film vs digital, small prints vs large prints) photographically that doesn't further my aims. If a title doesn't help the photograph or, worse, is detrimental,why do it?
My opinion is that titling individual photographs is often a bad thing, either because a title is bleeding obvious ("The dog") or closes down a photograph by forcing the photographer's opinion on the viewer like a straitjacket ("The terrorist").
The Magnum photographer Mark Power did a project called "The Shipping Forecast" about a famous British daily weather forecast on the radio that is always given for the same places around our coast ("Outer Hebrides, north by northwest, becoming clear, gale force 3..."). He went to every location and took a photograph, and titled them with the locations in the forecast. Thid is a case where titles are a help not a hindrance.
Note that although individual photographs may be better untitled, a project needs a title. Todd Hido may give his images catalogue numbers only but he does give meaningful descriptive titles to his series ("Excerpts from Silver Meadows" - Silver Meadows being a fictional town). Viewers need some frame of reference...
My opinion is that titling individual photographs is often a bad thing, either because a title is bleeding obvious ("The dog") or closes down a photograph by forcing the photographer's opinion on the viewer like a straitjacket ("The terrorist").
The Magnum photographer Mark Power did a project called "The Shipping Forecast" about a famous British daily weather forecast on the radio that is always given for the same places around our coast ("Outer Hebrides, north by northwest, becoming clear, gale force 3..."). He went to every location and took a photograph, and titled them with the locations in the forecast. Thid is a case where titles are a help not a hindrance.
Note that although individual photographs may be better untitled, a project needs a title. Todd Hido may give his images catalogue numbers only but he does give meaningful descriptive titles to his series ("Excerpts from Silver Meadows" - Silver Meadows being a fictional town). Viewers need some frame of reference...
Sparrow
Mentor
... now, back to reality ... one advantage of having a title is being able to find it on a computer later. I did that for a while, but when it didn't suite the latest project I went back to page numbers without thinking.
... I may have to reconsider that ... and give them a generic title
... I may have to reconsider that ... and give them a generic title
Black
Photographer.
Interesting view, Rich. I'm currently working on two projects and this is where sequential reference numbers have started. Both projects have a title and, when either are complete, there will some sort of introduction/forward that will compliment them, in some form or other. So, yeah, I kind of agree with that.
However, I'm still not sure that any fluff that I shoot (i.e. one liners / not project related) require a title. I mentioned a post or two up about leaving any viewer asking more questions about a photograph than it providing answers - I paraphrased this from footage from an Anders Petersen workshop, when he was giving critique to one of the participants there. Its an ethos I fully agree with, now.
RichC
Well-known
Agree totally. Only in one of my projects ("Digital archaeology") do the photographs have titles, and that's very deliberate because they're of aged technology, and the photographs draw parallels with artefacts displayed in a museum, so are titled "Smartphone c. 2012. Apple iPhone 5S" and so on.
Hiyawaan
Particular Individual
Before the internet provided me with a virtual wall I never titled any of my photographs. I remember that in one of my early photo classes during a critique one student put their photos on the board with titles. The teacher took a fat marker and crossed out all the titles saying something to the effect of "I'm not interested in what you think your images are about".
I feel that spontaneous shots, such as those in street photography, titles, as pointed out in the above comments, are an afterthought and is an attempt to add context to an image in an attempt to manipulate the viewer.
If the image is staged, by that I'm not referring to a portrait set up but rather an "artistic," preconceived conceptual image, then a title is more appropriate in my view. Perhaps the title came before the image was made.
I feel that spontaneous shots, such as those in street photography, titles, as pointed out in the above comments, are an afterthought and is an attempt to add context to an image in an attempt to manipulate the viewer.
If the image is staged, by that I'm not referring to a portrait set up but rather an "artistic," preconceived conceptual image, then a title is more appropriate in my view. Perhaps the title came before the image was made.
Sparrow
Mentor
... this is what I mean, there is a shiney new market just over the road and this temporary market (1953-2013) has been removed now, (its hard to believe it stood on the tiny plot that remains) The title is also the files name so I'll be able to find it, and anyone coming across it in the future will have an exact identification
The Market, Close by the New Fort, Kerkyra (Corfu) par Sparrow ... Stewart Mcbride, on ipernity
The Market, Close by the New Fort, Kerkyra (Corfu) par Sparrow ... Stewart Mcbride, on ipernity
jesse1dog
Light Catcher
Putting a title to an image possibly depends on where the image is to be viewed. In the RFF Gallery if the photo is one in a series, to have that series title might alert the viewer to investigate the photogs previous postings. With the same photo incorporated in a book with the series title, an individual photo title is superfluous. In an 'Art' Gallery situation it's possibly the caption that is more useful to the viewer although some form of connection between a photo and the caption is sometimes essential - viewed photo with catalogue caption.
But even a 'numerical' title is useful to someone, there 'has' to be some 'title' or 'reference' to catalogue the photo or to retrieve it from the depths of the multitude of files I at least have on my computer system.
Basically - 'who is the title for?'
But even a 'numerical' title is useful to someone, there 'has' to be some 'title' or 'reference' to catalogue the photo or to retrieve it from the depths of the multitude of files I at least have on my computer system.
Basically - 'who is the title for?'
jesse1dog
Light Catcher
I think Stewart's photo label 'The Market ............' is more of an attached caption rather than a title - but that is just me. Incidentally Stewart has also added his name and date on the mounting, both of which give more information to the viewer. I wonder how this affects the viewer's reaction to the photo?
Sparrow
Mentor
... my intention is 'factual and neutral' ... and the mount was intended to cover the text if it's framed
Monz
Monz
LOL ... I initially read the thread title as 'tilting' images.
Now I have to go away and rethink my response!
I also mis-read the title of the thread thinking Chris meant TILTING images
I was about to respond with a smart ass quip about using the rotation function in PS...