Why is the title of a photo so important?!

According to me, naming a image would only limit the endless

interpretations it can have. If I look at a photo and I see its name, my

thoughts and ideas are lead in that certain direction and I stop searching

other ideas in that image.

Yes it is true..a name of a photo makes you understand faster what the

photographer meant to express in that image...but not all the people see same

thing, and don't agree most of the time with the title.

How do you account for the fact that many if not most photos are left "Untitled", even of known artists.

I actually tend to name mine Untitled. But, experience in selling a few pics, tells me most people like to be led to the interpretation. So, I end up making some generic name....like the street it was taken on, or the town it was in, or the region.....etc.

 

But, if I completely had my way....they would all be named Untitled # <and the sequential number of it's release chronology>....heh....maybe even a few gaps, just to make people wonder.

A good--allusive--title can add a new layer of meaning.

Some people deliberately put no title to their work, some even call their works "no title". My preference is to give a title, even if it's ambiguous.

 

If I have produced an image for people to see, I want them to have an idea of what it means to me so that it orientates them to what they are looking at.

 

Possibly my work doesn't lend its self to endless interpretations.

 

If I want a level of uncertainty about an image, then I would give an ambiguous or nondescriptive title.

 

Just my 2p

 

Pete

A title is part of the story to a photograph. It sometimes tells the viewer the path to take when viewing the image.

 

I just participated with the TCPPA judging contest and the judges, all four of them, recommended a title to a photograph is important. At least when a person submits a print for competition a title can help the author of the print and sometimes be the deciding factor, tipping the scales to the one who has a title.

 

Of course, it's each persons' call. You can choose to have a title or not.

...yes, many points of view. It's good that here on photo.net people are very open minded, because on other photo sites the title is so important...most important sometimes; and one can often read as a comment to his/her photo about the title, the fact that it's not the right choice for that certain image. This I cannot understand...

A title is one thing, but a phrase or sentence describing the mood or feeling the picture

conveys for the photographer is too subjective. For example, some thing like this, "She's so

angry." If I think, she doesn't look angry, but seems to be tightening her face up in deep

thought, then the photographer and I don't agree on this. We shouldn't have to agree. I

shouldn't have to argue this point with myself. If the picture simply had a title like, "Ashley"

or

"My Sister"--no conflict. I would use nouns or noun phrases for the captions: some examples

,"Richard; Salina Street; Mt. Everest; Sisters; At The Shore."

IMHO if photographer needs to title, or even worse - to add text to his picture to make his message clearer, than he has failed as a photogarapher.

Most photographers ruin their work with their image titling...

 

They say something like "Monster Fingers in the Sky" rather than "Sky after Storm". See if the photo is recognizable as a sky and not something abstract then the title should reflect the fundamental image rather than map the photographer's tangent metaphor thinking...

 

In fact the photographer's metaphor thinking might be after the fact of the photo being taken rather than the thinking of the photographer at the time of the photo being taken. And certainly if so then the after-the-fact titling is superficial...

 

Now the photographer might be looking for skies that look like monster hands...and the photographer can prove that both by title and by volume of work.

What you say has some validity Paula though photographic images encompass a wide range of purposes for some of which a title has more purpose than with others. For instance a news image of a moderately well known person identifies them to parts of the public that might not yet know them. In general there are many reasons to title news images of people and the human world. On the other hand leaving a title off an abstract art photo allows just what you noted unless the idea in the mind of the photographer is too unusual for most people to easily see their point of view in which case a little help serves some purpose. Generally some types of images posted on the web for critique are likely better off not being titled than those that are part of someones business gallery. For those selling images of places and landscapes, a title immediately tells people where a location is. In fact when selling images, a title allows people to name an image by a title instead of some abstract index number they would otherwise find difficult to remember. For example consider the difference between a customer identifying an image they have interest in as 2006-FGH567 versus "Rainbow Over the Grand Canyon".

 

For my own marketed images I go as well beyond just titles versus other landscape photographers one might find on the web. Every one of the images I market on my below website image index brings up not only a page showing the image at a larger than usual display size for usual web photography galleries along with a title, but also below the image I include considerable natural history information plus information about what occurred and how I took the image. Most people that visit my website and look at the images do not bother to read that information. However some others do especially those that enjoy understanding deeper complexities of the natural world. For someone that is considering spending several hundred dollars for a large print they might have scene at an exhibit, the information provides considerable possible extra interest and detail that a viewer might otherwise only relate as abstract shapes and color. ...David

The title is so important, it must be noted when there is no title ( hence: untitled). [just kidding] Titles help with inventory and historical reference.

 

Stevie Nicks called one of her songs Rihannon, beacuse to her it was a song about a Welsh witch, or something like that. However if it were a photograph, I would have called it "really great bass".

"IMHO if photographer needs to title, or even worse - to add text to his picture to make his message clearer, than he has failed as a photogarapher."

 

I have heard this quite often in the online and popular photography circles and have always thought it was extremely limiting and shortsighted. Of course if you only take obvious photos, such as flowers, mountains, boats, seashores etc then nothing is needed since the message is invariably "Ain't nature grand" or "this is a beautiful object". If, however, you are into more challenging concepts and ideas then text or labels are totally appropriate and the photograph is then part of a larger concept, although usually the major portion. For instance see Joel Sternfeld's 'On This Site' as an example of a very strong body of work that absolutely needs text to explain the situation. It immediately transforms the images, which are quite banal, into something with much more significance and to me much more interesting than the typical, in-your-face, overbaked Nat Geo images.

Or they are provoking you to think more about the image. This can be done with a title that is straight forward or obscure. Go into any gallery and there will be paintings and sculptures with both obvious and not so obvious titles. You really have no right to disagree with the choice because it is not your work. You are, of course, free to think another, or no, title would be better but there is no denying that a title can affect your appreciation of a piece of art. Titles are there because art can be complicated and sometimes you need help to understand it. Would the Mona Lisa still be the Mona Lisa if it were titled "Girl with a smile"? If you closed your eyes and listened to "Flight of the Bumblebee", would you enjoy it as much if were called "Orchestra #2"?

It's so you can say "I went to Paris and saw the Mona Lisa" instead of saying "I went to Paris and saw that famous painting of the lady sort of smiling, you know the old one where she's not really grinning, but not unhappy, and everyone talks about it, done by ol' what's-his-name that did the backward notebooks and all..."

 

I do think a picture (or painting) generally shouldn't depend on the title for its visual appeal, although it doesn't always work that way. And of course, it's not at all uncommon to use photographs as illustrations where the title is what ties them into the other subject matter. Or in many cases, the interest of the scene is due to facts that are not visible in the picture. I might post a shot of "Eisenhower's Birthplace", which in the picture, looks just like a lot of other old houses, but derives its interest largely from the title. The title might not add anything to it in an artistic sense, but if this would be an application that goes beyond art.

<i>"IMHO if photographer needs to title, or even worse - to add text to his picture to make his message clearer, than he has failed as a photogarapher." </i><p>

Ahem! Me pardons, sir, but methinks one needs to glorify le photo with plentiful golden frame and engraved title!<div></div>

some times i do some times i dont it is what ever i feel like at the time i know on DA you had to name the photo but i do belive that some times it helps with the interpretations

"...the typical, in-your-face, overbaked Nat Geo images."

 

Andy,

 

I would love being able to take pictures even half as good as the one's in National

Geographic.

 

:)

 

Roger

I once saw a book of photos that won the Pulitzer Prize, one of them was a photo of a couple on a beach looking lost and sad by the edge of the sea. Without the description of what had happened, the photo would not have evoked much of an emotional response. The caption read that this couple were enjoying a day at the beach when a rogue wave suddenly swept their 18 month old baby away from them and was lost, it was probably the saddest any photo had ever made me feel. Without the description I would have forgotten the photo, and without the photo it would have been just another of countless horrible tragedies I have ever heard.

Well said Alan. Well said.

In photo club competions I found it very annoying that the judges always insisted on a title and some sort of contrived meaning for the image which was not obvious from the picture itself.

 

On the other hand I very much appreciate short descriptions of images. But a title - just a title with a few words is so often artificial, added there by perceived necessity. And the meanings that people come up with for their images often just show a sick imagination.

 

A description is good. A title just often leaves me uneasy.

Many times I make up titles, and days, weeks or months later get around to making the photograph. Often it never even gets depicted, but I find the title makes it easier for me to visualize the picture before shooting it. As often as not, the resultant photo doesn't fit the original chosen title and the name is abandoned anyway.

<i>"IMHO if photographer needs to title, or even worse - to add text to his picture to make his message clearer, than he has failed as a photogarapher."</i><p>

 

Would this be acceptable if it was reversed:<p><i>"IMHO if writer needs to add a picture to make his message clearer, than he has failed as a writer." ?</i><p>

 

One certainly hopes not. It would make many books boring. And what would The Little Prince be without the pictures in it? <p>

 

If one wants to see what titles can do to enhance the image (not captions, which some posters have confused with titles), check out the work of Manuel Alvarez Bravo.

I agree with Jeff. Words and images often create a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts. If you can find them, look at issues of Life magazine from the 'forties and 'fifties, where the photographs were enhanced by thoughtful captions. Alternatively, switch off the sound on your TV and see how much information you lose.

Check out Duane Michals also for photography combined with text.