sailor
Well-known
I hate having to think up titles as I used to do when I entered camera club competitions. Too often I've fallen into the trap of producing twee and cringeworthy titles I'm sorry to say.
What I do think makes a difference is when there is a commentary or explanation of the photograph, particularly where the subject is a person. It doesn't make the photograph any better but it can make the viewing experience more interesting. I've just treated myself to a book called Highland Journey by the Scottish photographer Robin Gillanders. On one page is the photo and facing it he talks about the circumstances of taking it and gives some details of the subject. I wouldn't consider all the photographs in the book to be fantastic works of art but the whole package was a thoroughly enjoyable experience.
What I do think makes a difference is when there is a commentary or explanation of the photograph, particularly where the subject is a person. It doesn't make the photograph any better but it can make the viewing experience more interesting. I've just treated myself to a book called Highland Journey by the Scottish photographer Robin Gillanders. On one page is the photo and facing it he talks about the circumstances of taking it and gives some details of the subject. I wouldn't consider all the photographs in the book to be fantastic works of art but the whole package was a thoroughly enjoyable experience.
ola.b
Established
I don´t know, maybe it´s wrong of me to bring that to the discussion. It´s not really a caption at all. Its some sort of text/photography-art-amalgam instead.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn´t. I think templeton makes it work.
The pun-type are just bleh.. dime a dozen, and usually incorporates pictures I find really boring(sharp telephoto snaps of your local wildlife like pigeons, dogs etc..)
robklurfield
eclipse
The italics and the words "some" and "something" are crucial here in what Damaso has written. And, I tend to agree.
I write titles for many of my images because they offer an opportunity to provoke thought and reaction on a different level than the images by themselves Witness the difference with Chris's image above with and without text; it stands alone nicely, but the contextualization is part of what was important to Chris. I'll differ with him as to how much any of us can tell the viewer about what to think about our images.
Our pictures are like a Christmas gifts. I can give you a nice skillet with the expectation that you'll use it to cook delicious omelets. But, for all I know, you might find it most useful for hammering nails or flatten curled up negatives. I yield control when I put an image out there.
Sometimes my titles are descriptive (mnemonic devices to help the addled photographer retrieve the darned pictures later); some are intended to be ironic; some are social commentary or contextualization; some are intended to be provocative; a few are word games; some are simply cryptic. I write titles because they please me. But that's just me.
A question: when was the last time that you read a book without a title ... saw a movie that was untitled ... asked the guide at a museum "where can I find that untitled Picasso?" ... ???
I write titles for many of my images because they offer an opportunity to provoke thought and reaction on a different level than the images by themselves Witness the difference with Chris's image above with and without text; it stands alone nicely, but the contextualization is part of what was important to Chris. I'll differ with him as to how much any of us can tell the viewer about what to think about our images.
Our pictures are like a Christmas gifts. I can give you a nice skillet with the expectation that you'll use it to cook delicious omelets. But, for all I know, you might find it most useful for hammering nails or flatten curled up negatives. I yield control when I put an image out there.
Sometimes my titles are descriptive (mnemonic devices to help the addled photographer retrieve the darned pictures later); some are intended to be ironic; some are social commentary or contextualization; some are intended to be provocative; a few are word games; some are simply cryptic. I write titles because they please me. But that's just me.
A question: when was the last time that you read a book without a title ... saw a movie that was untitled ... asked the guide at a museum "where can I find that untitled Picasso?" ... ???
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...
68degrees
Well-known
I started this thread because I had mixed feelings about titles and descriptions with photos. The more I think about it Im starting to think that by adding titles and descriptions the end result is a combination of poetry with photos to illustrate the words, neither the words nor the photo could stand alone. The photo is there to support the intended message. "Here are some words and here is a photo to illustrate and help convery what I mean to say". At this point in my evolution of this still forming opinion I dont think of that as art, more as photo journalism, because the meaning is forced on the viewer. I dont know Im just thinking out loud. Im not sure of any of this at this point.
Also , file name for storage and retrieval is not what I meant when I was thinking of titles or descriptions. I meant the accompany text that a viewer would see.
Also , file name for storage and retrieval is not what I meant when I was thinking of titles or descriptions. I meant the accompany text that a viewer would see.
raid
Dad Photographer
I do not like titles with photos, but I like to see a two line comment on the background. It is as Stephen recently stated, namely that knowing about how an image was created is very useful and complementary to the image.
Artsy fartsy titles don't add anything. I want to learn.
Useful information: camera/lens/film?/exposure/surroundings/problems/solutions.
Artsy fartsy titles don't add anything. I want to learn.
Useful information: camera/lens/film?/exposure/surroundings/problems/solutions.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
There obviously is no universal answer. It depends on the photo(s) and what the photographer is attempting to convey. I usually present a body of work and not singular images (although such is not possible here on RFF). And I usually have the goal of enlightening the viewer about a specific group of people or culture. I am still seeking how much information to add. Sometime it is a phrase, sometimes a location, and lately more descriptive.
I have an exhibit of 24 photos of my "Cuba - people" work opening at the Center for the Study of Southern Culture at the University of Mississippi. My objective is to show the similarities of the basic Cuban culture with that of the deep south of the US with a second objective to inform the viewer about Cuba. I am using extended captions. Hopefully the photos are strong enough to attract the viewer to read about them. Examples:
caption: Havana, with over 2 million people, has a critical housing shortage. Moving to Havana requires a permit which is almost impossible to obtain. Many move to Havana illegally for the economic opportunities in spite of the housing problems. New construction outside the downtown area stopped in 1991 with the severe economic problems caused by the collapse of the former Soviet Union, Cuba’s economic lifeline. Multiple generations of families live in small units. It is common to see a second story added inside a small apartment originally built with high ceilings. These once elegant apartments suffer from overcrowding and lack of maintenance since the revolution. Unfortunately, multi story building collapses are becoming too common.
Laundry is commonly done by hand in a wash tub. Clothes dryers do not exist as everything is hung on the line.
caption reads: This couple in downtown Havana proudly showed me the several hundred dollars worth of designer clothing they had bought on the days shopping spree. This is in a country with an average official income equating to $17 US per month. He insisted on buying me a beer so he could explain his business of helping foreigners with special economic transactions. Everything is regulated in Cuba but there is much government corruption. He knows how to get things approved. His wife is self employed providing special personal service for male tourists. She was bored with the entire conversation but calmly sat there and smiled.
caption: Every community has a hogar materno or maternity house where pregnant women stay as they approach birth. This assures they have transportation to the hospital since most do not have telephones and only a select few have access to an automobile. The women sleep in communal rooms and receive breast feeding and other health counseling. Most importantly they are removed from their daily responsibilities of cooking, cleaning, and looking after children. This hogar materno is in Vinales, a small agricultural town in western Cuba.
robklurfield
eclipse
Bob, I would enjoy photos without captions, but I certainly enjoy them more -- and get more out of them -- because of your thoughtful commentary.
sailor
Well-known
I couldn't agree more. The commentary doesn't make the photographs better as such but makes the viewing experience so much more interesting.
raid
Dad Photographer
A documentary presentation is incomplete (to me) without the descriptions on the background for the images.
Bob,
Your work is really nice.
Bob,
Your work is really nice.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Most exhibits have an artist statement and books have forewords. People like Duane Michals work actually has words on the images. Sometimes and some photographers title some don't. I think it depends on the work and what is trying to be communicated.
I really like the images you posted Bob and agree there is no one right answer.
I really like the images you posted Bob and agree there is no one right answer.
ola.b
Established
I guess it boils down to what you want to communicate with the photographs.
Some stand alone, as a single image without any title.
Some stories are told with a series of photographs, and some stories are told with both images and text (like the cuban series above)
Some stand alone, as a single image without any title.
Some stories are told with a series of photographs, and some stories are told with both images and text (like the cuban series above)
dct
perpetual amateur
At least where and what (or who, if a person of public interest is the main object on the photo). That doesn't mean I don't like the image per se, but it helps.
Additionally, if documentary style, more caption info like the explanations of Bob are a big plus for the image.
And - for the gear heads - let me know the equipment/film/etc the artist used
Additionally, if documentary style, more caption info like the explanations of Bob are a big plus for the image.
And - for the gear heads - let me know the equipment/film/etc the artist used
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Yes.
There is no right or wrong way to do it. Pick whatever works best for the photos you are presenting, and the statement you want to make with them.
Whether you title a photo, or not, use a descriptive title, or not, caption it, or not ... every choice you make on the presentation of a photo will change its effect on the perceptions of the viewer. Every photo "speaks for itself", every photo's presentation affects what it says.
G
Spanik
Well-known
Personally I don't like titles. The photo on itself should say something to the viewer. Never mind if this is what the photographer saw in it when he took/finished/posted it. Sometimes I find photo's with a title and then wonder why that title is applied because to me the title itself says nothing but the photo does. Or the inverse happens, you start looking forward to the photo and it is a complete disapointment because for me the title has no relation to the photo.
I fear this is because often titles are gratuitous. Like "December morning with fog", "portrait of XYZ", "Marketplace". Yeah, I can see that myself you know. Or they try to be "clever", like a b&w photo titled "Autumn colors". So it could be I don't like titles because often they aren't usefull or interesting or just misleading in order to be funny/artsy.
I can and do appreciate a longer "story" that comes with a picture. The why this picture is important to the photographer. But then it gets more personal than just a title slapped on it.
I fear this is because often titles are gratuitous. Like "December morning with fog", "portrait of XYZ", "Marketplace". Yeah, I can see that myself you know. Or they try to be "clever", like a b&w photo titled "Autumn colors". So it could be I don't like titles because often they aren't usefull or interesting or just misleading in order to be funny/artsy.
I can and do appreciate a longer "story" that comes with a picture. The why this picture is important to the photographer. But then it gets more personal than just a title slapped on it.
klaus123
Member
In my view it very much depends of what is on the photo and what it should "say" to the viewer.
One very impressive experience for me was an exibition of photos by Joel Sternfeld - he took a complete series of photos that showed locations where crimes happend - ther was a complete page of story behind that photos and it totaly changed the effect of these pictures.
A Book Presentation
One very impressive experience for me was an exibition of photos by Joel Sternfeld - he took a complete series of photos that showed locations where crimes happend - ther was a complete page of story behind that photos and it totaly changed the effect of these pictures.
A Book Presentation
Last edited:
jarski
Veteran
some seem to argue against using titles, because someone have used them misleading, or too obvious way. having decent title takes bit effort like taking a good photograph. whole title consisting random numbers and letters (to me) is a sign that likely the photos aren't that great either.
user237428934
User deletion pending
I don't care about titles. I expect some description of a photo. Look at burnmagazine website. Some authors of essays add descriptions to the single photos, some don't. Most of the time I'm completely lost when there is no description and the viewing experience is not really good this way.
lynnb
Veteran
Well, for other photographers, it may be useful (if you mean technical stuff). To the general non-photographing public, it means very little I would think.
Bob's and Chris' captions work well.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
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?
I see a bench that I probably wouldn't sit on without wearing protective clothing.
I like the image anyway.