| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/24/2006 09:47:51 PM · #26 |
sometimes, the title says it all...
 |
|
|
|
08/24/2006 09:48:57 PM · #27 |
Only thing I don't care about with titles is when a person tries to spell out what you the viewer should be thinking when viewing their photo. I prefer a subtler approach that might nudge me in the direction the photographer had in mind, but still leave me ample room to think about the shot and draw my own conclusions from it.
Witty titles are fun when they work. Comedy is a dangerous game.
Shoehorn titles are usually the last nail in the coffin anyway. |
|
|
|
08/24/2006 10:30:57 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Only thing I don't care about with titles is when a person tries to spell out what you the viewer should be thinking when viewing their photo. I prefer a subtler approach that might nudge me in the direction the photographer had in mind, but still leave me ample room to think about the shot and draw my own conclusions from it.
Witty titles are fun when they work. Comedy is a dangerous game.
Shoehorn titles are usually the last nail in the coffin anyway. |
Exactly my feelings, expressed more elequently :) |
|
|
|
08/24/2006 10:44:33 PM · #29 |
Titles are an important part of the package - for better or worse.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2006 11:01:49 PM · #30 |
Photography is an art form.
Other art forms use titles.
Challenge entries are more fun with titles.
Titles are optional, but important to convey ideas.
I like them, they affect my vote - both up or down.
My 2 cents. |
|
|
|
08/24/2006 11:02:47 PM · #31 |
Maybe I'm just being dumb but all the examples posted thus far illustrates the title being used to describe the photo not enhance it. I guess what I'm getting at is from an artistic standpoint and not that of photojournalism, I'd rather discover the meaning of the photo from looking at it not reading what's it about. I'd rather do that afterwards. When a title is so literal it ruins whatever else I could have gotten out of the photo because the photographer has now tainted my view of it if that makes sense. The more vague the title the better, IMO.
Message edited by author 2006-08-24 23:03:25. |
|
|
|
08/24/2006 11:13:30 PM · #32 |
i (sometimes) treat the challenge title as the images title & my title as a subtitle - so you should 'get it ' but you might need a nudge anyway ;)
some point last year i was advocating the same idea but i've been turned around ... might turnaround again .. ;)
|
|
|
|
08/24/2006 11:21:24 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Maybe I'm just being dumb but all the examples posted thus far illustrates the title being used to describe the photo not enhance it. I guess what I'm getting at is from an artistic standpoint and not that of photojournalism, I'd rather discover the meaning of the photo from looking at it not reading what's it about. I'd rather do that afterwards. When a title is so literal it ruins whatever else I could have gotten out of the photo because the photographer has now tainted my view of it if that makes sense. The more vague the title the better, IMO. |
It's a fairly abstract image, but the title, "The Quest," doesn't literally describe the image, but it does to some extent, and it certainly sets the mood and directs the viewer to a certain way of reading the image. In my view, a nicely chosen title for the image. |
|
|
|
08/24/2006 11:23:39 PM · #34 |
This one needed its title and still some people didn't get it. ;) |
|
|
|
08/24/2006 11:26:24 PM · #35 |
| For me, the title on any piece of art adds to the experience. Sometimes I look at the artwork itself first, sometimes the title first; whichever, I have my impression of the piece to compare with a clue of the artist's intention. It adds to the fun of it all and it definately puts my mind on the piece longer. Art that was intentionally left without a title keeps my attention longer. I like good titles. But titles like IMG_7954.jpg disappoint me greatly. |
|
|
|
08/24/2006 11:27:36 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
This one needed its title and still some people didn't get it. ;) |
Well, there's the rub. Sometimes, people don't want to think and don't pay attention to titles. Sometimes, your titles are just too weird. Sometimes, you hit the right balance and people actually read titles in the way YOU meant them to read. It's a crap shoot, but an important part of the image-presentation process. |
|
|
|
08/24/2006 11:49:27 PM · #37 |
This is favorite topic which always ends up with the same conclusions. It goes something like this:
Titles are both good and bad.
Some images do require a title while others do not.
Some images must have a title otherwise the viewer may miss the message of the image. Some images are so complete that a title impedes.
Some titles are so bad that they backfire. Some lead on the viewer to where he/her would rather journey themselves. Some merely point the direction or a specific paramater.
Many images are not complete unless their author names its offspring.
From the above we can conclude that titles are very helpful in many cases. Since they are offsprings of their maker, we see nothing wrong in bestowing a title.
We have all encountered the confusion and sometimes; change of mind and sometimes; the bad choice.
In my opinion the title is just as much part of the visual work so reflect with caution because a title that blends in well with the image is its index. A bad title is like unwanted noise in your image.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2006 12:11:55 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
This is favorite topic which always ends up with the same conclusions. It goes something like this:
..... |
Hey, Daniel, haven't seen you around much! Good to see you again.
-----------
Now back to the regular topic please. |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 12:18:41 AM · #39 |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 12:24:18 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
In a comment to a recent entry, some anonymous voter said:
"This is exactly what I hate, when someone doesn't meet the challenge and then twists the title to make it fit..."
So my proposal is to remove all titles until after the challenge.
Apparently they serve no purpose. If the site council wants the shot to be named, they will give specific instruction.
It started as a joke, but I think this should be done.
Look at a good photo in the winners- was the title necessary for voting? |
I oppose this, sometimes the title is necessary. There have been entries that have very well met the challenge but can be missed due to creative angles. 80% will get it, and a few slow witted over-worked strung out on their tenth cup of coffee people won't.
That said, I've seen quite a few ribbons with weak "challenge" association but great shots.
I often think too many people LOOK for reasons for a photo not to meet the challenge. I mean they'll see a fruit in an orange challenge but decide that since it's so big perhaps it's a grapefruit and then give it a "1" for DNMC.
Even though the challenge was orange, and it's a big round orange fruit. But it might actually be a grapefruit and not an orange. Yes, I'm simplifying things. But to me...that is my number one complaint with voting. So I oppose anything that is going to increase such occurrences. |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 12:27:50 AM · #41 |
Hey Daniel that was really heavy, but spot on.
Ken's examples above prove you sometimes need a title to finish the pun.
I generally try to be a little more subtle and let the viewer make the last bit of the leap after I have pointed them in the right direction.
For example with my "Dreams" entry this could not be accused of a shoehorn, but I also didn't want to outright say the title of the movie poster I was copying 'cause most of my generation would have recognised it instantly without it. All I wanted to do was hint at it for the younger crowd that might be saying "....oooohhh I know that from somewhere" or if they didn't know the movie at all at least it would still work.
 |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 12:54:54 AM · #42 |
The only titles that bother me are ones that try to explain something in such great detail - that's what the comments are for. I don't need you to use the title to overexplain that it really does meet the challenge or that the animal is real and alive or that the shot was handheld, etc. etc.
The only other title issue that bugs me is that the current yellow ribbon winner for Fire II didn't title the entry "Backdraft". ;-)
Message edited by author 2006-08-25 00:55:07. |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 02:11:03 AM · #43 |
A good title adds alot, and the best make you do a double take "hey I didn't think of that"
I don't generally penalise for a poor title, so keep 'em I say |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 02:14:03 AM · #44 |
| I generally don't read the title. However, the annoying, shoehorning ones that catch my attention usually generate another point deduction for DNMC. |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 06:16:14 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by yanko:
What's a good example of a photo that was enhanced by the title? I agree it may make the photo understandable but enhanced? |
Almost won a ribbon with this title.......
Yes, it made it understandable.... but it also made it funny. Without the title it would have been a completely random entry. Granted the impact is largely attributable to the nature of that particular challenge.
I Think Scalvert's peas and carats shot provides the perfect example of the impact of a title - sure it was a technically sound image, but the title added humour, which took the shot from an image that would have been something of an also-ran (albeit a good one), to a ribbon winner.
Message edited by author 2006-08-25 06:19:21. |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 06:31:15 AM · #46 |
Why don't we have a challenge with no titles. Don't put anything in the title area (ie. untitled, ***, *-*,etc.). When submitting your photograph in the title area just press the SPACEBAR once and it will let you have an entry with no title.
I would like to see the results of an no titled challenge.
SDW.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2006 07:06:20 AM · #47 |
I love it when, at a gallery or a show, I see something from across the room and I must to go over and look immediately; I have to know its NAME. And if I read the name and think, "Yes!" I feel I know the piece more intimately, that the artist gave me something more of themself, of their thoughts, and their personality.
Sometimes titles come to me before the image. Sometimes, after editing, the title just screams at me. Sometimes I have no title at all and have to use whatever I have. The images of mine I am connected to the most are the ones where I don't think any other title will do. Those images are complete, so to speak. There are titles I have used over and over as I try to find an image to convey what I mean by the title. For me at least, titles, like a mat, frame, border, processing choice, are part of the image. Most of my images are incomplete.
The top scorers of a no titled challenge would probably be landscapes. |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 07:22:58 AM · #48 |
the only time i usually look at titles is when i have no idea what the photo is about. i dont vote based on a title, i vote on the image.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2006 07:59:29 AM · #49 |
| I believe titles should be optional. I vote no titles by default in order to enter a challenge already named. |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 07:59:55 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
... In my opinion the title is just as much part of the visual work so reflect with caution because a title that blends in well with the image is its index. A bad title is like unwanted noise in your image. |
Wonderfully stated. |
|
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: 07/29/2025 08:08:08 AM EDT.
