Naming your photos?

C

Carl Hall

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,817
Edit My Images
Yes
I’ve done a quick search for this and couldn’t find much, but sorry if it’s already been discussed before!

I really love taking photos, and I love showing them to people. One thing I hate though is trying to think of a name or title for an image. Typically I just call them what they are; so if I’m going to Clevedon Pier for some photos then they usually just get called “Clevedon Pier” and “Clevedon Pier 2” etc. I think it’s one area where I really want to change what I do, but I find it quite difficult to come up with names that aren’t boring or meaningless.

I’ve noticed that it’s common for people to name their photos in a similar way to mine, but I’m not sure if that’s through choice with an opinion that it doesn’t really matter. Just curious about other peoples opinions? I fully expect a lot of people to think it’s not that important, and that’s fine, it’s just something I’m curious about :)
 
Naming pictures can be good for filing searching.

Naming pictures can be good so people know the location

Naming pictures can be good to help tell a story


Some would say a picture should do all the above on it's own ?

I put as much info as I can in a filename.. Who_where_year.jpg but then again I have hundreds of pictures a week going online so I need some sort of organisation.. your asking a question but all the poeple answering will ahve different needs.. one pic a week person.. 100 pics a week person.. business person, pro person..

So lots of different answers and reasons coming up.. the above are just my thoughts.. not the way i think others should do it :)
 
Naming or captioning?

If you are entering a competition, then a name / title can be important as it helps to position it in the judges or viewers mind. Ditto for exhibtions or books, although in these instances captions would also be relevant.

I'm sure someone will be along shortly to remind us that 'a picture should speak a thousand words' but that's just something some unknown dreamt up once, and while a worthy ideal, should not be taken as a rule.
 
yeah I guess it depends entirely on what you are shooting. A sport or event photographer whos taking hundreds of photos is going to name them something logical and meaningful which they will find useful in the future, whereas a landscaper who takes maybe 2-3 a month is more likely to give creative titles to their images.

I used to give my photos titles when I started out but then stopped for some reason. I only started thinking about it again when looking at Ben Horne's large format landscape work, each of which is given a title which I (personally) think adds a little more to the photo
 
Often I'll have a title before I trip the shutter, if I can't name it why am I taking it, if I can't answer that why should any one want to look at it. Often the title is simply a indication of location but sometimes I'll add more. Carl you should have lots of time to figure out why you're taking the image.
 
For me its a visual representation of what that image represents to me. I tend to take abstract conceptual images that look like something else. For example I have recently shot a series of buidings side on which appear to form 'a Keyboard of a Piano' If I ever get round to processing them it will be callled Piano 1, 2, 3 etc.
 
Naming the file.... no one cares, but naming a photo is a bit cheesy usually. Naming a series, or a book, or an exhibition... based on the theme is a different matter. However, naming a single image, especially by a caption... in a border.... (shudder). May go down well at a local camera club, but my advice is don't .

(This is the opinion of Pookeyhead, who wishes to remind you that it is just an opinion, and not necessarily an order to be obeyed.. as without writing this, camera club types will think me arrogant... I appreciate you're probably intelligent enough to work that out for yourself, but some on here clearly aren't.. end of disclaimer)
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit torn really on this, as occasionally I'll have an image that I like sufficiently that I'll actually name it, or it inspires me on the naming front but not often
 
I went through a spell of naming pictures with more than just a descriptor for 500px, before I realised it was pretentious. Usually these days it's just a description + file name.
 
nothing wrong with naming an image, this is Bertie, his name suits his image, it's not Pete, Bob or Rover ........ I only think of this image as "Bertie" and would not want others to think of anything other



bertie.jpg
 
BillN_33 said:
nothing wrong with naming an image, this is Bertie, his name suits his image, it's not Pete, Bob or Rover ........ I only think of this image as "Bertie" and would not want others to think of anything other
Click to expand...
I bet that's not the only picture you've got of him. Are they all called Bertie?
 
BillN_33 said:
nothing wrong with naming an image, this is Bertie, his name suits his image, it's not Pete, Bob or Rover ........ I only think of this image as "Bertie" and would not want others to think of anything other



bertie.jpg
Click to expand...

Isn't the DOG called Bertie though, not the image? If so, that's not a name for the image really.
 
Bythesea said:
I bet that's not the only picture you've got of him. Are they all called Bertie?
Click to expand...

no that's the only one that I have named, Bertie, but nothing wrong with more then one image having the same name ......... so is naming the image "Bertie" or anything else, like the name of a bird or Dragonfly "cheesy"

The name identifies the subject and informs the viewer



most images do not have a name, but all files have, my main file ID is the camera which took the image
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
BillN_33 said:
no that's the only one that I have named, Bertie, but nothing wrong with more then one image having the same name ......... so is naming the image "Bertie" or anything else, like the name of a bird or Dragonfly "cheesy"

The name identifies the subject
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting it's cheesy, just that if you have a number of images with the same name how would you know which people were talking about if they just used the name?
 
BillN_33 said:
no that's the only one that I have named, Bertie, but nothing wrong with more then one image having the same name ......... so is naming the image "Bertie" or anything else, like the name of a bird or Dragonfly "cheesy"

The name identifies the subject

Click to expand...


It may be the only one you've named Bertie... but if the Dog's name is actually Bertie, then that's not a title, or a caption... it's merely a label, telling me what I'm looking at, as is the example above... it's telling me I'm looking at a Broad Bodied Chaser.

It's a label, as most photography like this is descriptive and not interpretative... almost scientific. There's nothing for me to interpret whatsoever... but I may be interested in knowing what insect it is. This is why I always say "bugs on leaves" stuff is not creative. It's not an insult BTW before anyone starts crying... it's just realistic: It's not... it's a scientific, descriptive process... you're showing me the insect in immense detail. There's nothing for me to understand or interpret. It is what it is. There's nothing to discuss except Broad Bodied Chasers themselves... but then I'm no longer discussing the work really. Work like this pretty much NEEDS a label. Titling work like this isn't cheesy in the slightest, no. I'd be grateful for such information if I was interested in the subject.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bythesea said:
I'm not suggesting it's cheesy, just that if you have a number of images with the same name how would you know which people were talking about if they just used the name?
Click to expand...

Because you're naming the SERIES... like you would in a book.

Niagara by Alec Soth contains many images, but the BOOK is called Niagara.
 
Pookeyhead said:
It may be the only one you've named Bertie... but if the Dog's name is actually Bertie, then that's not a title, or a caption... it's merely a label, telling me what I'm looking at, as is the example above... it's telling me I'm looking at a Broad Bodied Chaser.

It's a label, as most photography like this is descriptive and not interpretative... almost scientific. There's nothing for me to interpret whatsoever... but I may be interested in knowing what insect it is. This is why I always say "bugs on leaves" stuff is not creative. It's not an insult BTW before anyone starts crying... it's just realistic: It's not... it's a scientific, descriptive process... you're showing me the insect in immense detail. There's nothing for me to understand or interpret. It is what it is. There's nothing to discuss except Broad Bodied Chasers themselves... but then I'm no longer discussing the work really. Work like this pretty much NEEDS a label. Tatling work like this isn't cheesy in the slightest, no. I'd be grateful for such information if I was interested in the subject.
Click to expand...

The word Bertie is the name of the dog ....... it is how I have always known him ...... to me, (and I think to other who know long haired JR's), the name Bertie describes his character, the way he is, "he's a Bertie" and that is what I wanted to convey in the image to the viewer ............

here's another two - "cheesy" with a name in the border this time!!

(it's a bird image!!) .. my main interest

sunrise_winch.jpg



bird_sky.jpg
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
The word Bertie is the name of the dog
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's not a caption, or a narrative device... It's a photo of Bertie.

That above is a sunrise... although with this one, it's redundant. Enjoyment of the image would not be changed if that wasn't there. In fact I'd argue it would be increased, as I'd not have the detracting border and text to distract me. Is it important I know it's a sunrise, not a sunset? Is it important I know it's shot in Winchester?
 
Pookeyhead said:
Exactly. It's not a caption, or a narrative device... It's a photo of Bertie.

That above is a sunrise... although with this one, it's redundant. Enjoyment of the image would not be changed if that wasn't there. In fact I'd argue it would be increased, as I'd not have the detracting border and text to distract me. Is it important I know it's a sunrise, not a sunset? Is it important I know it's shot in Winchester?
Click to expand...

Is it important? - it depends, to some people yes ....... it is important as it is informative ..............to others no, and they may see what they see or want to see if the image was upside down, sideway on with no text or border

we are all different

my images are "photos" nothing deeper .. they are not "art" (here we go) ...... if any are deemed to be it would be purely by accident on my part
 
Last edited:
We're all different is an answer that can justify almost anything though. One could say that it's OK to shoot with the lens cap on, as we're all different. The discussion is about the merits of doing what we do when deciding t add text... saying that were all different is not discussing the merits of doing, or not doing this... it's merely saying that some people do, and some people don't.
 
Pookeyhead said:
We're all different is an answer that can justify almost anything though. One could say that it's OK to shoot with the lens cap on, as we're all different. The discussion is about the merits of doing what we do when deciding t add text... saying that were all different is not discussing the merits of doing, or not doing this... it's merely saying that some people do, and some people don't.
Click to expand...

I haven't just said that .... you are just selecting what suits your argument

I also said

"Is it important? - it depends, to some people yes ....... it is important as it is informative ..............to others no, and they may see what they see or want to see if the image was upside down, sideway on with no text or border"

I would probably ask, is that a rook or a crow? .......... it's a rook
 
Last edited:
I think naming the photo Bertie is fine, being informative is good too, but captioning it with something like "A Dog's Life" is not something I would do.

Just checked on 500px and two random landscapes are called Desolation and other is Dilemma - I don't see what this adds to the photography.
 
If, when I look at an image, a name/phrase/quote leaps out at me, I might name it that. Usually I'll just go with a description of the subject (I tend to avoid going with numbers, "bug 1,bug 2" etc. because I could never keep track of what number I was up to).

Usually I'll only give it an alternate name if it makes me laugh. Does this belittle the effort that went into the picture? Yes, usually.. Am I bothered? Nah not really. I think if I was taking the images more seriously (maybe entering a competition or such like) then I would probably need to go with something to represent the theme or category or probably best to a avoid naming it. I prefer to hear how others interpret an image as it's quite surprising at times.

Besides you can name an image one thing when used in one area, and something completely different when used for a different purpose.
 
AndyB1976 said:
I think naming the photo Bertie is fine, being informative is good too, but captioning it with something like "A Dog's Life" is not something I would do.

Just checked on 500px and two random landscapes are called Desolation and other is Dilemma - I don't see what this adds to the photography.
Click to expand...

What happens quite a lot on here is that we get into issues and no-one posts images as examples, (good and bad), I always try to do this as it help me and I hope others to simplify the issues

"A Dog's life" may be appropriate ... to many images, not necessarily concerning dog's ........ ask many men! ............... things seem to get serious when they are not really
 
Last edited:
I'll be honest, most of my shots don't really get a title - most of 'em end up with just the file name from the camera or the scanning software. But, for most of the still life stuff I do, it DOES get a caption-type title... be it "Half a Dozen Roses" or "Vanitas with Globe and Fruit".

Occasionally something will get a bi more "flouncy" a title... like "The Ghost of Rembrandt" (there's a small reflection "of the artist" in the hourglass, in case your wondering why :LOL:) or "Delusions of Grandeur" - but on the whole I try and keep the titles a bit more descriptive...

Of course, now I realise that most people on here seem to think it's pretentious w***, I may re-assess my approach... or just carry on doing what I like... answers on a virtual postcard for that one I guess ;)
 
Last edited:
There's a difference between naming a photo, giving it a caption and titling it. A name helps you remember it, differentiate it from simialr pictures. A caption explains. A title can be pretentious, ironic, amusing, or it can lead the viewer to look at the photo in a particular way.

As has been said, where and why a picture is used can alter how it is named or otherwise.

This picture is from a series titled Stub it Out where it has no name or title. On my blog the post (and hence the picture) is titled Buskers, which is just a handy way to find it again - but also makes the subject the blurred figures and not the dog ends and so changes how the picture is viewed. Then we have the ability to add tags to the meta data of digital pictures to help us search for them on our computers - which is a form of captioning as multiple words can be used to put the pictures in different contexts. In this case the tags include the place it was taken and the series it's from, the date is already embedded in the file.

DL2_0576.jpg
 
steveo_mcg said:
Often I'll have a title before I trip the shutter, if I can't name it why am I taking it, if I can't answer that why should any one want to look at it. Often the title is simply a indication of location but sometimes I'll add more. Carl you should have lots of time to figure out why you're taking the image.
Click to expand...

I do find that a wee bit pretentious.
I personally don't take photographs assuming other people with want to look at them.
I take them because I enjoy doing so.
 
viv1969 said:
I do find that a wee bit pretentious.
I personally don't take photographs assuming other people with want to look at them.
I take them because I enjoy doing so.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but why then share them? I've lots of pictures I've taken for my own amusement or to just play about with the camera but I don't bother posting them anywhere.
 
viv1969 said:
I personally don't take photographs assuming other people with want to look at them.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that anyone takes photographs without wanting other people to see them. Although a photographer may be too shy to show the pictures the purpose of all photographs is to be looked at. Therefore that is part of the reason for taking them. If you simply enjoy the act of taking pictures there's no need for your camera to have a memory card or film in it.
 
steveo_mcg said:
Fair enough, but why then share them? I've lots of pictures I've taken for my own amusement or to just play about with the camera but I don't bother posting them anywhere.
Click to expand...

As do I....the overwhelming majority of them.

Ed Sutton said:
I don't believe that anyone takes photographs without wanting other people to see them. Although a photographer may be too shy to show the pictures the purpose of all photographs is to be looked at. Therefore that is part of the reason for taking them. If you simply enjoy the act of taking pictures there's no need for your camera to have a memory card or film in it.
Click to expand...

That's rubbish too.
As above, the vast majority of my images are only ever seen by me.
Without a memory card in the camera, even I would be unable to see them again.
 
I usually name mine crap1, crap 2, etc or to be binned 1, to be binned 2...

Tomorrow's photos while I'm out paragliding in the Alps might be called holycrap1, holycrap2 :D
 
steveo_mcg said:
Which, by implication, means the rest you do want people to see?
Click to expand...

Some, yes.
But me wanting to show some images online is not the same as assuming other people will WANT to see them.
 
viv1969 said:
Some, yes.
But me wanting to show some images online is not the same as assuming other people will WANT to see them.
Click to expand...

If you want to share the image you have to assume that some one wants to look at it even if just passing over the thread thinking "why did they bother" else you might as well leave it sitting on your memory card.
 
viv1969 said:
Some, yes.
But me wanting to show some images online is not the same as assuming other people will WANT to see them.
Click to expand...

Isn't that how an online photo community such as this works?

I assume people want to see my photos. If I didn't think that then I wouldn't share them. I'm not saying people will think they're any good, but I'm pretty certain that one of the main reasons people come on this forum is to see photos
 
ancient_mariner said:
I went through a spell of naming pictures with more than just a descriptor for 500px, before I realised it was pretentious. Usually these days it's just a description + file name.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is exactly why I think I stopped giving them creative names and just stuck to descriptions.

Pookeyhead said:
Naming the file.... no one cares, but naming a photo is a bit cheesy usually. Naming a series, or a book, or an exhibition... based on the theme is a different matter. However, naming a single image, especially by a caption... in a border.... (shudder). May go down well at a local camera club, but my advice is don't .

(This is the opinion of Pookeyhead, who wishes to remind you that it is just an opinion, and not necessarily an order to be obeyed.. as without writing this, camera club types will think me arrogant... I appreciate you're probably intelligent enough to work that out for yourself, but some on here clearly aren't.. end of disclaimer)
Click to expand...

I think certain photos can work well in borders, it depends entirely on the image. I see someone share photos elsewhere quite often and they add a black border to each image with their signature in the corner, and then put that on a white back background. They also add a piece of tape to the black border to make it look as if it's printed and stuck to a white wall. I find it really distracting and it's on every shot!
 
Nope, I store them on a separate hard drive in folders named with the location and date
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top