i dont know if this has been covered before, as i'm quite new to this forum and site....
Do photographs really need a title? Some of the best photographers in the areas I try to work for love more than money (erotic and fetish) very rarely title a photograph.
To have an abstract painting of blobs of yellow and pink and other colours, and call it "field of pansies," rather defeats the idea of abstract... To have a photograph of a sunset and call it "the sunset" rather defeats the idea of a sunset photograph if you need to tell people what it is.
The news paper challenge I can understand why a title would be important... it wished to mimic a newspaper with a headline!
I have to say, that I very rarely take in the titles of photos on sites, this included, unless the title and photo are either apposed, or in someway stand out... to have "guy on bike" and a photo of a guy on a bike... well...
Perhaps the requirement for a title should be removed from the site, and the photographs should be allowed to stand out in their own merit, or the combination of the two depending on the photographer....
A picture of some trainers on feet means nothing, but to have the title "just do it!" creates the mind link... even if the trainers are not the ones you think of, lol.
But a photograph of a watch should be able to sell itsself based on its content and the useage of DOF, likewise a sunset, hills, etc... some photos require a title for association, others dont, but the title seems manditory.
|
