| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/17/2006 10:58:48 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by bluenova:
What if it was a great photo with no title? |
I think that having no title would be better than having a bad title. If there's no title then there's room to imagine your own. Although, a good title still beats no title.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2006 11:03:06 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by bluenova:
What if it was a great photo with no title? |
Then it feels like the photographer couldn't be bothered to think, and figured: "Ah what the heck..... good enough"
I would still try not to let it influence me consciously, but I'm sure it would have a negative effect on me somehow (as do chunky borders). |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 11:04:23 AM · #28 |
The title for this one seemed to confuse many.
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=274864 |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 11:10:27 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by bluenova:
What if it was a great photo with no title? |
Then it feels like the photographer couldn't be bothered to think, and figured: "Ah what the heck..... good enough"
|
Karin, no offense but that's a bad assumption to make.
Go to any museum and you will see loads of beautiful works of art with a little plaque that reads
"Untitled "
...and I'm pretty sure these great Masters didn't say "ah, what the heck...good enough"
This image has a title but IMO doen't need one...the feeling you get from it speaks for it alone
Message edited by author 2006-01-17 11:13:11. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 11:11:12 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by bluenova:
What if it was a great photo with no title? |
I didn't think this one needed a title and it did pretty well so I assume people don't mind no title if the photographer doesn't think the image needs one. Sometimes you don't want to box people in with a title...look at Neil Shapiros work.
 |
Exactly, sometimes a photo just speaks for it's self. I think there will always be pictures where a 'caption' is necessary, and can really make the complete package, but a lot of pictures do not require this, and allow for the viewers imagination to take them on a journey without being put in a box by a title. (sorry if that sounds encrypted, I have a cold) |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 11:11:42 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by holdingtime:
The title for this one seemed to confuse many.
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=274864 |
 |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 11:22:29 AM · #32 |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 11:24:36 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Karin, no offense but that's a bad assumption to make.
|
Thoughts and emotions just happen, whether they are right, wrong or indifferent.
Can YOU turn off your feelings and gut reactions? I can't.
What I CAN do, is to acknowledge my feelings (IF I am consciously aware of them), but then let my brain take over the decision making (i.e. to NOT include the title in the voting process).
"Untitled" is a cop-out in my eyes. There are plenty of words that don't put the photo into any "box" and leave the imagination free to soar to your heart's content. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 11:30:19 AM · #34 |
I agree totally
Originally posted by coley3:
I woke up this morning with a comment from someone on my Best of 2005 entry that said (s)he was critiquing my photo based on the title I gave it.
That just doesn't seem right to me. This is a photo contest, right? Not a contest to see who can come up with the best written caption. I've never judged a photo on the way it fit the title (or the other way around)....
What about the rest of ya? How important is the title when it comes to voting?
~Nicole |
|
|
|
|
01/17/2006 11:34:40 AM · #35 |
I see the differing points of view here....
It seems as though the general consensus is that no photo should be graded down because of a bad title...Am I correct in that assumption?
I believe that a work of art may begin with the artist but the impact that it makes is really in the eyes of the viewer. (For me) no title, no matter how poignant, is going to change whether or not a photo evokes an emotion. If an artist has to explain to you what to look at or how you should feel, they they didn't really do a good job of bringing it out in their work.
~Nicole |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 11:45:40 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
This image has a title but IMO doen't need one...the feeling you get from it speaks for it alone |
In my case, the title on this one ('Passion') really helped me to appreciate it more.
Some people are wordburglers in addition to their visual leanings, while other people may use images to communicate in order to avoid words. The latter group won't care what your title is, but for the sake of the former, and their votes, a good title can't hurt. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 11:59:21 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by coley3:
...I believe that a work of art may begin with the artist but the impact that it makes is really in the eyes of the viewer. (For me) no title, no matter how poignant, is going to change whether or not a photo evokes an emotion. If an artist has to explain to you what to look at or how you should feel, they they didn't really do a good job of bringing it out in their work... |
A work of art more often than not begins with its own essence, derivatively, if you like, of some source or causation. An artist, here, acts as something akin to an antenna. Even his perception as part of his consciousness is not 'his' alone. It is, instead, an object of nature, as, conceivably, he is himself.
A title, in my view, is part of the whole of a presentation which, as such, can potentially charge or diminish the visual givens via a second dimension (language). The experience may end up richer or poorer for it, depending on the quality of the title and its associative criteria in the context.
'Untitled', '---', *** or numbers for a title are themselves titles and should be read as such, unless we want to come away thinking the author 'lazy' or 'incompetent', which, I doubt, anyone in his right mind would intend.
Message edited by author 2006-01-17 12:59:50.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2006 11:59:52 AM · #38 |
I actually saw a picture that I had to look at twice in this challenge that had no visible title. I don't really know if it was a bug, but perhaps it will soon be possible to enter truly untitled images.
Of course, there has always been the option of writing 'Untitled'.
I feel that with given current technology and such things as Babelfish and online dictionaries galore, a title should have some thought put into it and should be properly spelled and capitalized. If it is not, there should be a reason for it that lends something to the photo.
If you know a person's name, that person is inescapably more important to you than if you did not know that person's name. The same goes for pictures.
If you refer to a picture by name, it's a big deal. If you refer to it as that pic with the hot pink balloon and the bullet.... You might know it, but it is still just another pic.
I will also state that while my commenter did not say if my vote was affected and I assume it was not, I too received a comment on my title. I would hope that my title would not be considered to be part of the picture, but something that adds to it (or has potential to), much like clothing does for a friend.
My title was originally conceived in a different language, so reads a bit oddly, but if that language was supported on this website, it would have looked a bit different, and retained the original bi-lingual play on words. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 12:02:00 PM · #39 |
I got a comment on my Best of 2005 about my title also. I chose to give it a creative name and the voter said. "That's not a "my creative name" that's a "the proper name that only someone who is involved it this subject would have ever heard of" This was the extend of their comment.
I can't say I really learned anything from that comment but have learned from the others I may need new contacts. lol Mine's soft but getting "FOCUS" comments. :0 |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 12:17:21 PM · #40 |
Interesting thread ... I think that I find that a picture should convey the message or meet the challenge without the title .. but titles may assist, especially when people don't know what they are looking at .. which a lot of people don't as there are different cultures here which make different things really precious.
Kari |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 12:23:40 PM · #41 |
Titles
No Titles
Good Titles
Bad Titles
Every single one of these choices makes an impression on me.
If you have a great title that really fits, it helps finish the photo off. If you have a bad title whether it is pretentious, vulgar, Long and Rambling or Short and Pointless..Thats the chance you take.
But leaving a title off says just as much as having a title..and that can be good or bad..so you aren't getting away from making a decision good or bad..cause you still made a decision and it has an effect :-D
I love stuff like that :-)
|
|
|
|
01/17/2006 12:36:57 PM · #42 |
| I personally hate titles and never pay attention to them. I can't believe someone criticized you on your titling. But then again, with some of the ridiculous comments I've received lately I guess it's pretty much pare for the course. I'm beginning to think folks feel obligated to write drivel simply to bolster their stats. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 12:50:09 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by ballpeen:
I personally hate titles and never pay attention to them. I can't believe someone criticized you on your titling. But then again, with some of the ridiculous comments I've received lately I guess it's pretty much pare for the course. I'm beginning to think folks feel obligated to write drivel simply to bolster their stats. |
Just because you don't pay attention to titles doesn't mean a major portion of voters don't.
My advice for people looking to do everything they can to help their score....pay attention to how you title your photo.
This site is like advertising..you gotta pay attention to the consumer. Not to say photography is like advertising..just the voting and the way to score well here :-) |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 01:31:30 PM · #44 |
Would "David" be as popular if the title was "Naked Guy"?
Would the "Venus De Milo" be as poular if the title was "Naked double Amputee"?
Would the "Mona Lisa" be as popular as "Bob's wife with a funky smirk"?
A good title may not always make the work better, but a bad title easily makes it worse. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 01:36:57 PM · #45 |
I do look at the title - but only to see if it helps convey the photographers view of the subject to me better. I do not adjust scores based upon it, but will mention in comments if I feel the title is not doing it justice. This must not have been a comment made by me as I would not have given the impression that the score was going to be affected by the title. I myself have a hard time with titles - takes me days to come up with something that conveys what I am trying to express.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2006 01:40:42 PM · #46 |
Anything you include with your image such as a mat, frame, (border), or title becomes a part of the entire presentation. The color of a car doesn't affect its performance. White wall tires don't affect the performance. Fuzzy dice in the mirror don't affect the performance. Each of these affect your perception of the car though.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2006 01:52:21 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Brenb:
I got a comment on my Best of 2005 about my title also. I chose to give it a creative name and the voter said. "That's not a "my creative name" that's a "the proper name that only someone who is involved it this subject would have ever heard of" This was the extend of their comment.
I can't say I really learned anything from that comment but have learned from the others I may need new contacts. lol Mine's soft but getting "FOCUS" comments. :0 |
If that was me, I complimented the photo at the beginning of the comment, waxed pedantic on the terminology, and closed with "As I said, NO effect on the score, and love your shot." So it wouldn't be fair to say that was "the extent of my comment".
If it wasn't me, then there's someone out there had the same thing happen to them this challenge :-)
The main point being, the title struck me enough to "correct" it, but it had no effect on my vote whatsoever and I pointed that out. I cannot recall having ever scored an image down for a poor title, although I for sure have bumped some for excellent titles. I consider the title to be at least potentially an enhancer of the image.
Lawd knows plenty of MY titles have ticked people off LOL.
R. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 02:01:10 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Would "David" be as popular if the title was "Naked Guy"?
Would the "Venus De Milo" be as poular if the title was "Naked double Amputee"?
Would the "Mona Lisa" be as popular as "Bob's wife with a funky smirk"?
A good title may not always make the work better, but a bad title easily makes it worse. |
Interestingly enough, two of those examples are titles that were applied long after the creation of the artwork. "Mona Lisa" was titled "La Gioconda" by Leonardo da Vinci. "Venus de Milo" Is actually a sculpture of Aphrodite, the Greek goddess whom the Romans replaced with Venus, and she is called that because she was discovered on the Greek island of Melos, which Latinizes to "Milo".
Not that this negates any point you're making, since the titles and the objects now go together in our minds...
R. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 02:02:55 PM · #49 |
Because of this thread, I completely re-thought my free study title with this in mind.
I think that if some people think it's important enough to change their vote over it, then it's important to me too.
I won't be changing my vote for a bad title, I rarely pay attention unless I just don't get the pic. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 02:08:32 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by ballpeen:
... I'm beginning to think folks feel obligated to write drivel simply to bolster their stats. |
There are many on this site that would love to read some "drivel"...be thankful you're getting some feedback. ;^)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/02/2025 09:16:40 AM EST.
