How Do You Title Your Photographs

[cz23]

I pretty much suck at creating titles for my photographs. I'd actually rather not title them at all, because titles seem limiting. But posts, contests, and other presentations may require titles.

I'd appreciate you thinking on photograph titles and how you go about labeling your own photos. Thanks.

John

 

[bizarrius]

if you HAVE to give a title, just give a songs name you like and it kinda connects to what the picture shows. 😀

 

[umcelinho]

i usually use a single word as a title, connecting to the image. but sometimes i use phrases as well. i don't know, i think i suck at giving titles to my photos too 🙂

 

[Steve M.]

I'm w/ you. No title, unless absolutely necessary.

 

[The Standard Deviant]

I think everyone feels their titles aren't any good. If you think your titles are good, they probably suck!

 

[rover]

No titles, more or less. I went through my flickr at one point and deleted most if the titles I had used.

 

[doolittle]

If you have to give it a title, go with "Untitled No. blah"

 

[TaoPhoto]

I'm in the same situation of sucking at creating titles. I try, just to relieve monotony on my portfolio site, for example. Somehow "Untitled #62" just looks like I'm not trying hard enough.

 

[tlitody]

If you can't think of a good title then just call it "Street Photography Study nn" or whatever the subject was so it could be "Urban Life Study nn". Or "Study in Uban Life nn". It kind of says you were experimenting with a theme. That way you can call all your images from a place or subject the same without having to think of individual titles.
Or do like Michael Kenna and count things so you end up with titles such as "7 People" or "2 buildings" or "5 Cars" or "7 Trees". It's a cop out but if you are shooting a building or place it makes a lot of sense to just number them "study nn". That's what painters have been doing for years.

 

[Morca007]

I don't title individual photos, only series.

 

[ottluuk]

I don't try to invent catchy stuff. When a title is needed, I state as simply as possible who or what is in the picture and roughly where and when it was taken. A photo of a dude named John drinking beer in a pub in Tartu would be called "John. Tartu, 2011". A photo of some random people walking on a beach might be called "Gold Coast, Brisbane, 2004". This remains relevant to the image but doesn't tell the viewers how they should interpret it.

I specifically avoid using titles like "Freedom", "Love", "Dreams", "Beauty" etc. A couple sitting across a table might mean "love" to some, but "breakfast" or "growing apart" to others.

 

[peterm1]

I don't title individual photos. But a few years back I decided that it would be nice to identify them somehow as mine. I did not especially like the idea of putting my name on them so I decided that I would have a "studio" name and I call my work "Life in Shadows". Which I kinda think says something about the nature of photography - capturing little snippets of life in shadows on a screen. So thats how I sign / name my work. I have made a Photoshop "stamp" with those words on it and usually sign it on a simple white border to each piece. This is also how I name my Flickr gallery.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/life_in_shadows/

 

[rbiemer]

I try to stick with simple, short descriptive titles. I have had to train myself to NOT use puns...no reason to inflict that kind of punishment on people nice enough to look at my photographs!
Rob

 

[tapesonthefloor]

I go with the first thing that pops into my head. Every time.

 

[chrismoret]

What comes to mind in the first instand is the title. But I have now remorse to change it when I feel like it...

 

[Alpacaman]

I do mine numerically if possible

...but I am entering it in a competition I will give it a title based on some relatively banal aspect of the image such as contrast, time it was taken etc. 😀

 

[cz23]

Thanks, everyone. I'm sticking with no title. If I have to I'll go with "Untitled." Appreciate all your thoughts.

John

 

[redisburning]

no title or overly descriptive.

my favorite title is "butters looking at the squirrels". butters is my dog's name, and she was looking at squirrels.

I have a lot of black and white images of boston's tallest buildings. I wonder if titling a few of them "I saw this building in a photo in your lobby, how about I sell you this one for 1/4 of what you paid them?" would work out for me.

 

[jordanstarr]

I wouldn't outright dismiss titles. They have a purpose. Sometimes people say "don't put a title" because the photo has very little or no meaning and is simply "street photography for the sake of street photography" or something along those lines -ie. photos that are just "still water" (there's no substance, no connection, no vision). Titles can be a useful tool to help get the vision of your photo across and make the viewer realize something about the photograph and the reason you chose to show it to the world. Some photos need to be titled so you can understand what's going on. Some people use overly corny titles to attach meaning to a photograph, which drives me insane, but that's just me. I think each photograph you take may or may not need a title and it's up to you. Do you want to aid the viewer to "see what you see" with a title or do you allow the viewer to come to their own conclusion. It can persuade the reader to experience the photograph a certain way or it can be totally ambiguous. The answer is totally subjective. Just over half of my portfolio is titled, the other half is not. Even if I have a title, it's usually simple and to the point.

 

[hiorgos]

I try to stick with simple, short descriptive titles. I have had to train myself to NOT use puns...no reason to inflict that kind of punishment on people nice enough to look at my photographs!
Rob

Well put 😀

I go with the first thing that pops into my head. Every time.

This too. I try to keep it simple, with some connection to the picture, and not to get into esoteric or deep meanings.