68degrees
Well-known
Does anyone have an opinion about photos having titles or descriptons? Should a photo be able to speak for itself and stand on its own without help from words? So much of what a particular photo says has to do with whats inside of the person viewing it. To another person it may say something else or nothing. By adding words and description does this interfere with what the photo could have said to a viewer if it were allowed to speak for itself? Opinions?
back alley
IMAGES
i prefer no titles...but then i do title all my pics...mostly to make it easier to find later on.
lynnb
Veteran
A title can have a number of functions - it can explain content that is difficult to decipher, or place the photo in context (eg. site of a historic battle), or frame the viewer's interpretation.. and so on.
Some photos don't need a title. It depends on the photo, and what you're trying to say.
Some photos don't need a title. It depends on the photo, and what you're trying to say.
gb hill
Veteran
I title most of my photos but like Joe said, I prefer untitled photos. Perhaps my new resolution for 2013 will be "No titles"
mep
Established
I agree. I prefer none, but sometimes do it because my old PC is a haystack.
I was looking through 1x.com the other night, and thought about this exact question. From the pretentious to the puntastic. But that was just me, and there are those occasions where sensibilities align and the title just fits.
I was looking through 1x.com the other night, and thought about this exact question. From the pretentious to the puntastic. But that was just me, and there are those occasions where sensibilities align and the title just fits.
quejai
Established
In terms of the print? no.
In terms of digital management? yes. I use the film type, followed by the shot number. e.g. RVP50_26. For other details, such as location, etc I put that into the exif data; and they're categorised in folders by particular shoots / events. It works.
In terms of digital management? yes. I use the film type, followed by the shot number. e.g. RVP50_26. For other details, such as location, etc I put that into the exif data; and they're categorised in folders by particular shoots / events. It works.
Last edited:
kokoshawnuff
Alex
Only digitally do I name photos and I typically make them cryptic when I do
Richard G
Veteran
A poem's title makes the poem get to the point quicker. There the title and the poem are of the same material, words. As mentioned above, a title to a photograph can help the understanding. Untitled photographs abound, and might be more interesting. I prefer no title, but recently have been titling a lot of mine here. Sometimes it does seem title for title's sake. My LR catalog has whatever is generated by the camera - I have done nothing to order my pictures, which I will regret, no doubt. But it's like reading email - it takes time I don't want to spend.
lam
Well-known
I prefer to title my images, as they are as someone commented to me "beautifuly unfantastic" in the photographic sense. I believe it helps explain the gesture or thought i'm trying to convey, if not first seen (as blatant).
L David Tomei
Well-known
Personally I add titles to most that I post. For instance, my photo of a lit up toilet wouldn't make any sense without the title "Ancient Solar Observatory" (clearly not exactly a highly artistic photograph). If a photo is to be titled, the title should be carefully chosen and should work with the image. If the photographer doesn't feel that a title enhances the image, then it should be left out. Then again, if an over wrought title is so important, then perhaps the photograph is at fault. Many titles that I see add nothing to the appreciation of the image but that doesn't necessarily mean that titles aren't appropriate in general. In fact, many photos that I see would benefit from some title, comment, or explanation of why the shot was taken or what is it supposed to communicate if anything.
In my opinion, if the photographer wishes to add a title, then it should be done with greater care. However, photographs are not always so artistically pure that they require no comment or title to complete the work.
My best wishes to all for the coming new year. David
In my opinion, if the photographer wishes to add a title, then it should be done with greater care. However, photographs are not always so artistically pure that they require no comment or title to complete the work.
My best wishes to all for the coming new year. David
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I don't give a damn what the viewer sees in my photo, I'm the artist, I decide what they see. A description adds context the photograph and makes a full understanding of it possible.
Here's an example:
No description, what do you see?
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Here's the description:
This Christmas decoration hung on the front of Jus-4-Now, a swingers club located in the Hallmark Inn, a rundown motel on Fort Wayne's decaying industrial east side. I guess there was more "Joy" there than appearances would indicate!
NOW, what do you see?
steveniphoto
Well-known
I don't give a damn what the viewer sees in my photo, I'm the artist, I decide what they see. A description adds context the photograph and makes a full understanding of it possible.
Here's an example:
No description, what do you see?
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Here's the description:
This Christmas decoration hung on the front of Jus-4-Now, a swingers club located in the Hallmark Inn, a rundown motel on Fort Wayne's decaying industrial east side. I guess there was more "Joy" there than appearances would indicate!
NOW, what do you see?
not trying to undermine you at all, but i still see a picture of a wall with JOY spelled out on it.
i generally go with if your image is good enough then it shouldn't need a description. it should speak for itself.
"Photos have no narrative content. They only describe light on surface" - Garry Winogrand.
ola.b
Established
I can´t seem to make up my mind. In general short or no titles are best.
I do HATE, and I mean HATE, titles that try to make comedy of something not funny at all. bird/animal/pet-photographers are especially good at this, trying to give the animal on the photo some humanlike humorous quality.
I do kind of like Ed Templetons way of writing captions, in some cases entire stories, on his photos/prints/artwork.
I believe I´ve heard him say something like "its a way to make not-amazing photographs of interesting moments work"
an example here:
I do HATE, and I mean HATE, titles that try to make comedy of something not funny at all. bird/animal/pet-photographers are especially good at this, trying to give the animal on the photo some humanlike humorous quality.
I do kind of like Ed Templetons way of writing captions, in some cases entire stories, on his photos/prints/artwork.
I believe I´ve heard him say something like "its a way to make not-amazing photographs of interesting moments work"
an example here:
daveleo
what?
Title
Title
As a poster and as a viewer, I'll go either way on titles, and it is not very important (to me, either way) for posting pictures on casual photo forums.
I do get a giggle out of pictures (in galleries and museums) titled "Untitled" . . . I'm sure there is a reason for giving an untitled picture an "Untitled" title . . . maybe it's sarcasm ?
EDIT: when I post to my personal web gallery, I title pictures "#101", "#323", etc so people don't have to say "You know, the one with the blue flowers in it."
Title
As a poster and as a viewer, I'll go either way on titles, and it is not very important (to me, either way) for posting pictures on casual photo forums.
I do get a giggle out of pictures (in galleries and museums) titled "Untitled" . . . I'm sure there is a reason for giving an untitled picture an "Untitled" title . . . maybe it's sarcasm ?
EDIT: when I post to my personal web gallery, I title pictures "#101", "#323", etc so people don't have to say "You know, the one with the blue flowers in it."
Addy101
Well-known
@ola.b: how can you "kind of like" THAT?? It is much worse the funny-but-not-so-funny remarks by animal photographers.....
A caption can give some depth to the narrative of a picture. The picture posted by Chris is an interesting example. I saw the picture, thought nice, but nothing special; read the caption, thought that sheds a new light on the picture; went back to the picture and was thinking it didn't change the picture. It didn't change the narrative. However, if there was somebody sitting on the bench, that would have changed the narrative and the way I "see" the picture.
On forums a (short) title helps refering to a picture, so it works there. I assume it is the same in museums, they need a name to refer to it in their catalogue.
In conclusion:
I don't need a title or caption.
Titles can be useful on forums.
Once in a while a caption can be useful to explain what your looking at.
A caption can give some depth to the narrative of a picture. The picture posted by Chris is an interesting example. I saw the picture, thought nice, but nothing special; read the caption, thought that sheds a new light on the picture; went back to the picture and was thinking it didn't change the picture. It didn't change the narrative. However, if there was somebody sitting on the bench, that would have changed the narrative and the way I "see" the picture.
On forums a (short) title helps refering to a picture, so it works there. I assume it is the same in museums, they need a name to refer to it in their catalogue.
In conclusion:
I don't need a title or caption.
Titles can be useful on forums.
Once in a while a caption can be useful to explain what your looking at.
jarski
Veteran
IMO even something that stands out should have a title.
carefully naming every single shot on Flickr stream, dont see the point, unless its really a collection of ones above. I add location/event/etc. when importing stuff to computer and use that as title when posting to net. its machine generated, but has least some meaningful information for potential viewer.
carefully naming every single shot on Flickr stream, dont see the point, unless its really a collection of ones above. I add location/event/etc. when importing stuff to computer and use that as title when posting to net. its machine generated, but has least some meaningful information for potential viewer.
Sparrow
Veteran
Copyright, date and where it was taken .. on anything worth printing, the title the scanner puts on the scan otherwise
I love the pretentious titles folk put on their mediocre flickr snaps ...
I love the pretentious titles folk put on their mediocre flickr snaps ...
Damaso
Photojournalist
Photographs should work on many different levels. You should be able to look at an image without a title or caption and get something out of it. If you see a title or a caption perhaps you get something more. If you look at the image longer perhaps you get something more. But I am a firm believer that images should be accessible on some level without any additional material...
thegman
Veteran
I like a simple description, such as where the photo was taken, etc. I don't like "creative" titles very much.
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
I have fun titling my work. I base the title on what I see in the images after scanning them. It helps me find the image later and gives the viewer some idea of what I see in the image. I find I often want to title others "untitled" images. The poetry aalogy is apt. My digital collages have elaborate titles and I see them more like my epic poetry. My B&W work is usualy titled with a word, or two and I see these more like haiku. in some ways, my photo becomes a personal definition of the word used to title it.