Titles

droj

droj

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,069
Name
droj
Edit My Images
No
Do you provide titles / descriptions for your images, when shared in any form - in print, or on the net - eg, a note about the subject, what camera &/or lens was used, or maybe an attempt at humour to broadcast what a wittily sharp dude you are? Or even something that gives meaningful insight?

Often when browsing I come across an image, let's say of an old mill, and underneath will be the title: 'Old Mill'. Well, yes - I can see that by looking at the image! Does the author think we're all ultra-stupid?

Can a title / description actually complement a photograph and act in concert with it in a way that isn't over-prescriptive - or worse, cheesy?

If words are to be appended, don't they become almost as important as the photograph just by being present?

Here's a mischievous suggestion that could cover all cases -

'Here I was,
I clicked the shutter;
you may well decide
that I'm a nutter'

Others may go for something more enigmatically poseurish such as 'On the Fly no.17923' - which signifies that the work isn't just part of a series (Gawd, that many?), but also has artistic pretensions.

Seriously, though ... isn't it worth a bit more thought?
 
Last edited:
On my prints I just write the place and year. It’s a habit I got into when I was doing exhibitions as it saved having to do a separate title piece to accompany each frame - I did that a couple of times and thereafter didn’t bother as it was just one of the million other things to prepare when having an exhibition (and store thereafter).

Other than that, a ‘creative’ title isn’t for me. Fine if you’re in a camera club competition, but I haven’t been for about 15 years and as my photography is more documentary in nature, place/year works for me.
 
It depends on the context the picture is being shown, and who to. I always stick to facts though; who, what, when, where, etc. Like Andy, I'm more documentarian than artist but even my more arty pics would never be given a 'poetic' title.
 
When I upload to Flickr, I add the image to the map, give it a name and all the EXIF details are included.
If someone, say a TP member happens to like my shot then they can click on the image link and that will take them to the image in Flickr where they can view all the details and also view it larger than they can on the forum.
 
I title my images with a word that will help me find it in a folder at some time in the future. If I had named an image of an old mill as 'View across the river', I would struggle to find it if it included and old mill and that was what I wanted to find again.
 
Norkie said:
I title my images with a word that will help me find it in a folder at some time in the future. If I had named an image of an old mill as 'View across the river', I would struggle to find it if it included and old mill and that was what I wanted to find again.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that be better done with tags than titles?
 
Have you been on something in recent days?
 
droj said:
Do you provide titles / descriptions for your images, when shared in any form - in print, or on the net - eg, a note about the subject, what camera &/or lens was used, or maybe an attempt at humour to broadcast what a wittily sharp dude you are? Or even something that gives meaningful insight?

Often when browsing I come across an image, let's say of an old mill, and underneath will be the title: 'Old Mill'. Well, yes - I can see that by looking at the image! Does the author think we're all ultra-stupid?

Can a title / description actually complement a photograph and act in concert with it in a way that isn't over-prescriptive - or worse, cheesy?

If words are to be appended, don't they become almost as important as the photograph just by being present?

Here's a mischievous suggestion that could cover all cases -

'Here I was,
I clicked the shutter;
you may well decide
that I'm a nutter'

Others may go for something more enigmatically poseurish such as 'On the Fly no.17923' - which signifies that the work isn't just part of a series (Gawd, that many?), but also has artistic pretensions.

Seriously, though ... isn't it worth a bit more thought?
Click to expand...
Another thing that annoys me is when I see an amazing landscape and the title is something like DSC_123.
I mean, what does that tell anyone :thinking:
 
I title my images when entering competitions which may be club, national or international. It is almost always part of the rules and helps with the administration of the competition. I mainly use a straightforward title such as "Chestleton Mill" or "Laura" but do occasionally use a more obscure name. Searching for image in LR, I would normally use Keywords and dates but can sometimes search by text (which will look at the title).

Dave
 
I rarely title my images, I don't see the point. As you mention, if I've taken a photo of a waterfall why label it a waterfall? Normally I tag my photos so if anyone is interested in where it was taken they can normally find it in there.

I must admit I find a lot ot titles and/or descriptions pretentious half the time. Maybe I'm just not cultured as I feel the same way about people who spend an hour discussing the mertis of a modern art piece ;)
 
I only really do this when I upload to Flickr. Sometimes I'll give things a title, if something springs to mind easily; if not I'll usually just title it with where it was taken. Sometimes I'll add a bit more information in the description as well.

I add as many tags as I can think of, and all the EXIF is there too.

I agree with the OP about leaving them titled DSC_xxx though, I don't know why anyone would do that! :)
 
The saying goes "A picture is worth a thousand words"

for some when looking at a picture there are no words, and just as deaf people need subtitles on TV so do optically/ imaginationary challenged people need a subtitle for their enjoyment of a photo. In TV or a film you get a constant running commentary to keep up with the story, in a photo its one scene, so you only need provide one or two words to pull the trigger for them.
 
"The Treachery Of Images"...
 
And for those who look at a photo and dont see or think do the words make them think? and bring them into their own existence? so they can appreciate your photo?

Titles provide a valuable service. and the view may not even appreciate that. :)

Saying that, a title for an image is a bit different than a title for storage system.
 
As someone said I think it depends on where the image is being shown. The few I post here tend to have "old mill" or whatever, sometimes I will do a pun title, depends on subject and my mood. Many I post here will have camera and lens details.
The ones I post elsewhere tend to have generic titles "car show" or "comiccon" whatever. Thats more to make it easier to find for someone looking.
 
I have a concept of a title,
 
I never actually title any images. On the hard drive or on Flickr - for many many years now, my image title on Flickr has been "***" :) I do always add a little description though of at least the location (ie Sunrise at Tenby Harbour) and the kit used (A7Riii - 35GM) sometimes I will write more of a little story if there's one to accompany the image.
 
Sometimes I add titles, other times I don't. Depends on whether I am being lazy (most of the time) or not (very rarely)... I do, most of the time, add keywords to my images so some information should be there in the metadata (if it hasn't been stripped) or in the case of my Pentax K-1 location details are included (assuming GPS is turned on).
 
imo the combinations of words and photos are important (depends on the image) and titles are the most basic of use of words. Like others, but interest is more in documentary and it's important to contexualise the work

I generally stick to the facts, e.g. time and place - or something very literal and descriptive. I'm not creative with coming up with titles in the slighted.

I wouldn't use artistic / poetic titles - but I'm very happy to look at pictures that have been titled like that.. but I can easily made to feel stupid if I don't 'get it'

I often have issues with titles in Street Photography, where the people in the pictures are not known to the photographer - sometimes I feel like we're invited to laugh at the people in the pictures and not with them. e.g. the titles are condescending or take aim at a persons appearance, or the title tried to come up with some narrative that wasn't there - that perhaps isn't there and would embarrass the subject if they see it. I don't have an issue with such pictures - it's just the titles that anchor the meaning. I don't think other genres of photography have this issue.
 
Lots of good answers so far! I think that viewers' responses to titles will be unpredictable, & vary just as their responses to the images themselves will.

What I probably detest the most are titles that are superficially witty. But no title at all, or just a number, at least avoids any risk of misinterpretation.

At best, though, a good title can reinforce the intention & experience of an image ...
 
Last edited:
droj said:
And do you title your concepts? ;)
Click to expand...

droj said:
And do you title your concepts? ;)
Click to expand...

I am two inexperienced.

But thank you Droj you have made me consider things a little differently. I have thought about concepts, and I plan to have some!
 
I dont't put titles on pictures but I use the 255 characters in a filename to let me find what I'm looking for.
 
IPTC guidance on this might be of interest. I realise we are using "title" in much broader sense, and not just as a cataloguing/ editorial tool.

Title

A shorthand reference for the digital image. Title provides a short human readable name which can be a text and/or numeric reference. It is not the same as Headline.

A very short, 1-line summary (around 64 characters suggested, though often longer is fine) used as a quick reference or page title (e.g., "Golden Gate Bridge at Sunset").

Description/Caption
The Description field, often referred to as a ‘caption', is used to describe the who, what (and possibly where and when) and why of what is happening in the photograph. It can include people’s names, their roles in the action, and location information. Geographic location details should also be entered in the Location fields. The amount of detail included will depend on the image and whether the image is documentary or conceptual. Typically, editorial images come with complete caption text, while advertising images may not.

Headline

A headline is a brief synopsis or summary of the contents of the photograph. Like a news story, the Headline should grab attention, and telegraph the content of the image to the audience. Headlines need to be succinct. Leave the supporting narrative for the Description field. Do not, however, confuse the Headline term with the Title term.

 
Last edited:
to be honest, most of the stuff I shoot doesn't get a "title" as such - the exceptions being a while back, when I actually took photographs, and did a bit of a series of themed still life images.

They did mostly end up with a title - pretentious as it may seem - because they were "after the style of" 16/17th Century Dutch Vanitas works, which, would have had a title...

The titles were mostily quite "prosaic", being just something like "Still Life with Wine and Walnuts" or the like, but one or two got a little more "flowery" and arty-fartsy.
 
Hanley said:
Why would you care?
You do you, let them do their own thing. :)
Click to expand...
It matters. I dont think anyone here is telling people what they should or shouldn't do, but it's worth discussing at least?

If you choose to decontexualise your work by adding no or almost no text, it has a massive effect on how the work in seen and discussed by people? and Likewise if you strongly anchor the meaning of a photo, shutting off alternative interpretations by use of title and/or captions. Some work needs to be heavily contextualised, other work doesn't...
 
benc98 said:
If you choose to decontexualise your work by adding no or almost no text, it has a massive effect on how the work in seen and discussed by people?
Click to expand...
But that only matters if your work is for other people. I take photos for me, if other people like it then great, but I don't go out with the intention to 'wow' other people with the photos I take (y)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
benc98 said:
I often have issues with titles in Street Photography, where the people in the pictures are not known to the photographer - sometimes I feel like we're invited to laugh at the people in the pictures and not with them. e.g. the titles are condescending or take aim at a persons appearance, or the title tried to come up with some narrative that wasn't there - that perhaps isn't there and would embarrass the subject if they see it. I don't have an issue with such pictures - it's just the titles that anchor the meaning. I don't think other genres of photography have this issue.
Click to expand...


100% agreed and there are times when those assumptions border on defamation.

I caption, headline and title almost all of my photos - but then that's part of the job.
 
benc98 said:
It matters. I dont think anyone here is telling people what they should or shouldn't do, but it's worth discussing at least?

If you choose to decontexualise your work by adding no or almost no text, it has a massive effect on how the work in seen and discussed by people? and Likewise if you strongly anchor the meaning of a photo, shutting off alternative interpretations by use of title and/or captions. Some work needs to be heavily contextualised, other work doesn't...
Click to expand...
Sorry but that's absolute rubbish, what does it have to do with you or anyone else.
Anyone who raises points like this just sound arrogant and up their own arse.

I'll caption my pictures however I see fit and couldn't care less what anyone else thinks!! (I'll get down off my soapbox now) :ROFLMAO:

All of the above was said in the context of banter and not offensive! :)
 
Hanley said:
Sorry but that's absolute rubbish, what does it have to do with you or anyone else.
Anyone who raises points like this just sound arrogant and up their own arse.

I'll caption my pictures however I see fit and couldn't care less what anyone else thinks!! (I'll get down off my soapbox now) :ROFLMAO:

All of the above was said in the context of banter and not offensive! :)
Click to expand...
You have lost me here.

What was wrong with the point @benc98 raised.

As far as I can see, he has just reflected on the effect that different approaches to titles can have on how a viewer will interpret a photograph. Which, in a thread discussing the use of titles, seems a perfectly reasonable post.

I see nothing that suggests any photographer shouldn’t be titling their photographs as they see fit.
 
myotis said:
You have lost me here.

What was wrong with the point @benc98 raised.

As far as I can see, he has just reflected on the effect that different approaches to titles can have on how a viewer will interpret a photograph. Which, in a thread discussing the use of titles, seems a perfectly reasonable post.

I see nothing that suggests any photographer shouldn’t be titling their photographs as they see fit.
Click to expand...
I hadn't had my first coffee before replying :ROFLMAO:
 
Hanley said:
Sorry but that's absolute rubbish, what does it have to do with you or anyone else.
Anyone who raises points like this just sound arrogant and up their own arse.

I'll caption my pictures however I see fit and couldn't care less what anyone else thinks!! (I'll get down off my soapbox now) :ROFLMAO:

All of the above was said in the context of banter and not offensive! :)
Click to expand...


Well, apart from being tantalisingly close to breaking the law at times, interpreting people's actions for your own amusement comes across as smug
and arrogant. It is also spectacularly rude and antisocial.

Sadly we see it quite frequently in the street photography forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top