Do you title your photos?

[sienarot]

I recently had a photo published in a magazine and a friend of mine sarcastically pointed out I had a pretty creative name for my photo -- I left it untitled. When I gave my reason for leaving it untitled, he mockingly called me artsy. I just simply told him I preferred to leave my photos untitled to leave them open for interpretation by the viewer (nothing too artsy about that, I don't think?).

So I'm just wondering, how many give your photos a title? And what's your reason for it (regardless of whether you do or do not)? I'm just interested in hearing what some of your philosophies are behind this 🙂

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Every photo published has a title.

Sort of a mini back story to give it context.

For example: a photo of a kid in a party dress may look OK, but the same photo titled "Ines' Third Birthday" tells enough more to make it more interesting.

 

[infrequent]

yes i do title my photos. atleast the ones on flickr all have titles and bit of a back story!

 

[f/stopblues]

I like to let the photos speak for themselves as much as possible. I usually feel like if you need to direct the viewer with words then the photo doesn't express as much as it should. There's exceptions, no doubt.. photojournalism where context is critical perhaps (James Nachtwey.) When I flip through one of my books with photos from Richard Avedon, HCB, or Mary Ellen Mark they may have brief titles, but they're so insignificant that you really have to look for them.

That being said, for the simple reason of keeping photos straight on my computer, I title things very plainly with the most obvious element in the photo, such as a guy sitting on a bench is titled, "bench" and so on. I don't want them to have a crutch.

 

[rami]

city + year = title 🙂

 

[OurManInTangier]

That's a tough one.

I agree with the principle of allowing the picture to tell the story without the need for direction from a title, creative or otherwise. Principle and reality don't always sit so comfotably together for me ( maybe I just don't have strong principles😉 ) however

I will always give my pictures a descriptive file name for storage on my computer and this often becomes so entrenched in my association with the picture that if I upload it to RFF for example then it seems appropriate to title it with the same name. Other images seem to require some form of descriptive title, i.e. I took a shot of people surfing on the UK's east coast, this is an incredibly rare event and was only possible due to heavy storms and a huge tidal surge - I felt it needed a title that described this fact otherwise it was simply an image of people surfing.

I suppose I would like my images to all remain "Untitled" simply as this is the (supposedly) 'purer' process and doesn't intentionally direct the viewers thoughts or emotions, unfortunately the reality is my images aren't always strong enough for this and sometimes I'm capable of convincing myself that an image deserves a descriptive title.

I apply this only to my own images as I often find that other peoples photographs that are accompanied by titles really add to the 'value' of the image - a potential positive and negative. Also, an image will never be rescued by a witty or clever title, if the picture is poor then its poor regardless of what you call it.

 

[jky]

Where I was, what the subject reminded me of, what it makes me think of when I look at the photo... etc.
A description of my personal view when I took that particular photo. Hmmm... in hindsight isn't that the purpose of titles? Anyway, it's not meant to lead the viewer down a certain path (not my intent anyway), but rather it's the way my brain files the pics in my head.
Cheers

 

[pesphoto]

A brief, literal description with date is all.

 

[.JL.]

Not good with words, and don't want to change my mind on the title in the future. I simply go with

Subject's Name, Location, Year

 

[RayPA]

I think photos should be one or a combination of:
untitled, or
titled with city + year (location + year), and/or
short description of photo (e.g., Sunrise Over Yosemite, Boy with Grenade, etc., and this should be considered for cataloguing purposes, like keywords)

 

[John Rountree]

How can you find your negatives if the photographs don't have titles? Even IMGxxxx is a title. As to public display, I agree that a simple title is best. "Untitled" is a bit of a conceit for me and it also makes me think the photographer doesn't really know what he/she is trying to say in the photograph. But, this advise and six bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's. There are no rules. Do what you believe is in your best interest.

 

[Graham Line]

Museum exhibits always drive me bonkers when people go around studiously reading the labels and sometimes barely looking at the photos. 🙂
Mine are identified so I can find them in my own files -- I'll never remember a number, but for exhibition I think titles are a distraction and interfere with the viewer's experience of the photo.
Before you all answer, yes, I like the back story on pictures, but would rather have an exhibit explained in a leaflet or catalog instead of on the wall.

 

[rogue_designer]

sometimes I do, either with a descriptive (Canterbury Catherdral, North Aisle, 1994) or with an ironic (Laundry's Done!) ... but I also have an absurd number of (Untitled Chicago 2007, #58) images.

*shrug*

For filing purposes, each negative sheet is numbered and dated, and I have a title field in my database to match them up where required. But I'm really behind on entering data. I need to hire a temp to come organize the last few years worth of crap.

 

[cosmonot]

I think there's a difference between captioning a photo and titling it.

I don't title my photos. I feel that if it needs a title in order to "succeed" as an image, then I as a photographer have failed. The composition should be pleasing enough to stand on it's own, something interesting enough to look at.

Captioning an image is a different deal alltogether. I guess it comes down to this: did you go out to make a striking image or document something significant? What is the reason for the photo? To be what it is, a photograph, or to tell a story? If that's the case, I'd like to see more than "Tears. Chicago, 2007" if you did the work because you want me to care about why the little kid is crying. That descriptive title might just be long enough to be called a caption. See what I mean?

 

[Spider67]

Really tough on as it could trigger automated answers
a) of course not! Only bourgeouis sentimentalist name their photos
b)no as I am a purist
c)I see myself in the great tradition of Rembrandt, Dali and .... therfore I name them

I must admit I name them when i saw somthing in my subject that reminded me of something else....(a bit like surrealism)....I encountered another question:"Do you have to title them in English?"

 

[DougK]

I don't title my photos anymore, although I may add details in a caption if I think it necessary. I do create a number of tags for location, date, and people for each photo uploaded to Flickr, though.

 

[Morca007]

I title them when I feel I should.

If I have a backstory to the photograph that I want to communicate, or I feel particularly witty, I title it.
If not, "Untitled #."

 

[jbf]

When I feel a photo has a title I do. A lot of my photos lately have been portraits, so many of them go untitled.

 

[bsdunek]

I think there's a difference between captioning a photo and titling it.

I don't title my photos. I feel that if it needs a title in order to "succeed" as an image, then I as a photographer have failed. The composition should be pleasing enough to stand on it's own, something interesting enough to look at.

Captioning an image is a different deal alltogether. I guess it comes down to this: did you go out to make a striking image or document something significant? What is the reason for the photo? To be what it is, a photograph, or to tell a story? If that's the case, I'd like to see more than "Tears. Chicago, 2007" if you did the work because you want me to care about why the little kid is crying. That descriptive title might just be long enough to be called a caption. See what I mean?

Good thoughts! I guess most of mine are captioned. I usuelly title photos entered in shows. See my gallery. 😎

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

My photos only get cataloging titles (e.g. 120307a) based on the date that I processed them and saved them to my computer. I give them captions on Flickr sometimes. I don't have any experience with printing photos for purchase by others though. I agree with some of the above posts: "Untitled" as a title is mildly annoying.