Why post a title the subject is obvious.

<p>Actually I don't agree with this but being on another site I got feedback from another photography stating that photographs don't require names, that it irritates him to have to post a title to give his photo meaning. He didn't see the purpose in posting titles on photos. I have to say there are some photos that could just go with a description but to be understood a title really helps especially when there is substance, meaning, and feeling in a picture. </p>

<p>An interesting photo can be interpreted in many ways. Titling just lets others know how the photographer views the subject, if they want to share that in some way. It's pretty simple, but it does require a sufficiently interesting photo.</p>

<p>If a photo is "good"(*) it requires no title.<br /> In all other cases, a caption/title might be useful. Some photos do not speak at all. If all a photo speaks is in the title, the photo is a failure.</p>

<p>(*) see <a href="../philosophy-of-photography-forum/00X1xX">this</a> for further details.</p>

<p>I don't typically care about "titles" for photos. I care more about "captions". But that probably has more to do with the fact that I am more interested in the kind of photography that typically has a caption than the kind that typically has a title.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If a photo is "good"(*) it requires no title.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Art isn't about requirements. It's up to the photographer to decide whether or not it "requires" a title, not the viewer.</p>

<p>OTOH, it can be <em>very</em> difficult to discuss the work of a photographer who has thousands of 'untitleds' or very vague titles by, say, location, that repeat throughout the work.</p>

<p>Sorry, double post.</p>

<p>Titles can be attached to good or bad photos. Some titles are poor substitutes for what may be lacking in the photo. Titles such as My <em>Sad</em> Mother may accompany a photo that doesn't convey the sadness the photographer wanted, so the title is making up for something. Other titles may spice up an already good photo or provide interesting information.</p>

<p>I generally title my portraits with the name of the subject. In some contexts, I provide other titles, especially when I'm showing a group of photos. Titles can nicely tie various photos together. There's no rule that says a photo must accomplish all communication visually. A title can be an accompaniment, not always a substitute for something. I have a photo of my dad. It felt right to me to call it "Dad" rather than "Carl." If someone wants to take that as my attempt to make the photo more significant to viewers, so be it. I think the relationship between my father and me is part of the photo, but wouldn't necessarily be seen in the photo. I don't think it detracts from the viewing experience for people to know it's my father. I want the viewer to know that but I wouldn't have cared to specifically establish it visually in the photo.</p>

<p>There are many banal titles that detract from photos, IMO, but it's not an all or nothing proposition. A lot of documentary work is helped enormously by titles and writing. Much non-documentary photography has at least some documentary aspect. Information (as supplied by a title) can easily be ignored by those not interested and absorbed by those who get something out of it. </p>

<blockquote>Art isn't about requirements.</blockquote>

<p>Not every photo is art. :-).</p>

<p>Let me try to rephrase</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If a photo is "good"(*) it <em>needs </em>no title.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Luca, I disagree. If a photo is good or even great, the photographer may very well decide that it does <em>need</em> a title. And he might just be right, at least on occasion.</p>

<p>Fred's got it summed up pretty well, I think. And nicely addresses the issue of needing an evaluation of whether or not the photograph is "good" (whew!).</p>

<p>Just use a catalog number. My Olympus cameras arbitrarily issue a sequential numeric file name since all files have to be named in most computer systems. I assume other brands do the same or similar thing. Use that, problem solved. your viewers have something to refer to, the hosting service is happy, and you haven't tainted your art with a title.</p>

<p>The catalogue number is a nice idea.</p>

<p>Titles can be helpful, sometimes needed, but I find them damnably difficult to think up,and I feel there's a often problem in telling the viewer what to think.</p>

<p>This forum is funny. We have been spending thousands of words on judging photographs.<br>

And hardly came to a conclusion. :-)<br>

Now we debate titles.<br>

Photographers can give a title to a photo. They are also free not to do so. Viewers might need titles, or disregards titles.<br>

The only statement I really stick with is</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If a photo speaks <em><strong>only </strong></em>through the title, the photo is (visually) a failure.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>If a photo speaks <em><strong>only </strong></em>through the title, the photo is (visually) a failure.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I could write a title well enough that it made a photo much more communicative, I would be extremely happy and probably take up a career in writing. </p>

<p>Titles are essential in cataloging a body of pictures.</p>

<p>The catalog serves to distinguish one picture from another without having to exhaustively re-describe it.<br>

Two people can discuss a picture if they can recall its appearance from its name.<br>

Giving a picture a title means "signing off" on it; signifying completion rather than a work in progress or a half formed idea.<br>

When you get famous the scholars of the future preparing your <em>catalogue raisonne</em> won't hate you for leaving thousands of "untitleds".</p>

<p>On the other hand using a title as a substitute <strong>caption</strong> to lead the viewer in directions that the picture isn't going is truly cringeworthy.</p>

<p>I love the self indulgent nonsense titles! Back in the days of the dinosaurs, I REALLY ticked off a co-worker when he titled a mediocre candid of a moderately pretty girl, "She Was. . . She Was. . .", and I laughed. <br />I asked him what She WAS and he replied, "my girlfriend". I then asked him why didn't he just call the photo, "That Stupid Bit**"? That might have been a mistake.</p>

<p>Then again if you give it a REALLY descriptive title, blind people could enjoy your work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I could write a title well enough that it made a photo much more communicative, I would be extremely happy and probably take up a career in writing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I still can distinguish my photographing and my writing.<br>

If a photo of mine communicated only because of its title, I would just trash it.</p>

<p>Luca, your point is legitimate and clear. I'm not sure why this would be an either/or proposition. I think there's a lot of great potential in talking about different ways a title can be effectively used with a photograph and different ways they can detract from the viewing experience. Is it really about whether a photo ONLY communicates because of a title, or is there more to it than that? Debate or discussion?</p>

<p>I heard some great feedback on this issue. I can see how there are times when a title may not be necessary and there are times it helps the viewer understand the work or identify with the work. For example I saw a photo a woman torso only. Here breasts were exposed and on one of her nipples was a butterfly. I guess you could say in this case the viewer could be lead to believe this was pornographic because it was titillating and was titled Breast. On the other hand the butterfly sucks nectar from the flowers. The Butterfly could be thought of as a metaphor for the suckling of the baby on the breast for breast milk as a way to support or subsist on. I guess some would say I overanalyzed this. I will say that a title of "Breast" is accurate but it does little to support of the meaning of what the photo says. I have to agree with the person that said a name can detract from the image. In this case naming the picture breast makes the image look purely sexual and without substance. </p>

<p>David by Michaelangelo. Starry Night by Van Gogh. In he case of David, would the sculpture be as world known and meaningful if he called it Young Man instead of David. Of course in the case of Starry Night, Van Gogh only sold one of his paintings in his lifetime, so maybe he should have come up with a catchier title.</p>

<p>I agree though that a picture should stand on its own. However, a title just to distinguish it one from another isn't so bad. Better than giving them the cameras next sequence number. That's kind of hard to remember. For me I like using the names of people if people shots. And what I'm shooting like, Egret, Rowboats, Stream 1 and Stream 2 if there more than one,etc. Sometimes I do give it an adjective that does give my own impression like Strength but I used that because the object was named elsewhere on another picture and I was getting bored using common pronouns anyway followed by the next number in sequence.</p>

<p>Maybe newspapers and news magazines and even news web sites should do away with photos because the words should "stand on their own." Think about it. It's incredibly obvious that there is no reason not to make titles part of the photos. If you can't write titles that's fine, but it can be an integral part of the experience. This idea that photos are just photos doesn't hold if you have any kind of creative view of photos, writing, anything. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It irritates him to have to post a title to give his photo meaning.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This discussion reminds me of two contradictory quotations. Choose the one that makes more sense to you.</p>

<p>"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - <em>George Bernard Shaw</em></p>

<p>"Those who matter don't mind, and those who mind don't matter." - <em>Dr. Seuss</em><br /><br /></p>

<blockquote><em>Maybe newspapers and news magazines and even news web sites should do away with photos because the words should "stand on their own." Think about it. It's incredibly obvious that there is no reason not to make titles part of the photos. If you can't write titles that's fine, but it can be an integral part of the experience. This idea that photos are just photos doesn't hold if you have any kind of creative view of photos, writing, anything.</em></blockquote>

<p><strong>Jeff</strong>,<br>

of course I was taking some sort of radical position on that matter. Of course I do give titles to my photos - sometimes, sometimes not. Almost all have a caption.<br>

Communication of course combines visual and text. In Newspapers the combination of words and images wins.<br>

I'm talking about one extreme situation when a photo does not speak visually but only through its title. In that case the photo fails its visual "mission".</p>