| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/17/2006 02:12:54 PM · #51 |
I'm astounded at the posts from people who say they disregard or don't even look at a title. What's going through your mind when you first look at an image ... nothing at all?
I really don't believe it is even possible to entirely disregard the title.
Here's an interesting example:
... prosaic subject, mediocre photograph, and it finished top 10. I hate it, and it's my highest-ranked image! It could only have been the title, I suppose. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 02:40:30 PM · #52 |
For me, the title makes an impact. I won't lower your score for a bad title, but if I like the image I will note my distaste of the title. Also, sometimes a title makes an image 'complete.' If an especially good title is on a photograph I will bump it up a point. And I often note this in the comments also.
I recently got into a juried art exhibit with an image titled, "Searching for Gomorrah." If I titled it "Woman in Desert" it loses its intended meaning. And I'm pretty sure one of the reason's it was chosen was the title.
Some titles are in the image. Some have to be dwelled on for a while. Some seem to never want a title. Just the way it goes...
And, Ubique, that title gave the image much more meaning than "barbed wire on fence post." I would have scored it higher just for that.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2006 03:08:22 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by ubique:
I'm astounded at the posts from people who say they disregard or don't even look at a title. What's going through your mind when you first look at an image ... nothing at all?
I really don't believe it is even possible to entirely disregard the title.
Here's an interesting example:
... prosaic subject, mediocre photograph, and it finished top 10. I hate it, and it's my highest-ranked image! It could only have been the title, I suppose. |
On that image, the title was worth an extra point from me :-) Helped me look at the image metaphorically instead of literally.
R. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 03:36:23 PM · #54 |
I think the title is part of the whole package and it almost always influences my vote. I also leave comments on titles if I think they hurt the shot or if I think they could have been better.
Maybe part of that is because I also believe a photo should tell a story. If it's just a pretty picture I don't really care that much about it; there's plenty of pretty pictures out there already, but if it makes me think or evokes emotion, that to me is where the power/art is.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2006 03:43:52 PM · #55 |
| A title, like framing, can make an impact. A good title will help evoke the proper feeling or help direct the eye to the intended subject. A bad title will cause confusion or make people ponder the title more than the image. While a bad title won't destroy a great shot and a good title can't save a bad shot, I think it can influence things a few points. I give an example of a Shapes shot I commented on in my 4.8-5.2 thread. The title had the word "Koru" in it, which may be well known in New Zealand, but isn't elsewhere. I told her that the word may have caused confusion among the voters and hurt her overall score somewhat. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 03:57:26 PM · #56 |
I don't think I title is nearly important as the photo itself, but it could easily sway my final score by a point. A great, meaningful, non-cliche title really drives home the photographers intention. A useless, misspelled, or otherwise annoying title (trying to cram in stuff that should be in the comments box) *could* make me drop the photo a point, especially if I'm comparing the photo to something similar that didn't have a bad title.
I really do think it's a whole package. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 04:01:59 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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. |
Nope wasn't from you Bear. I wish it was because then you would have told me you loved my photo. At least someone would have loved it. lol
I do feel the titles can impact the photos. That's an excelent example Bear. It bothers me when someone doesn't take the time to title them, however I don't deduct for it.
Message edited by author 2006-01-17 16:07:54. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 04:07:56 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Brenb:
Nope wasn't from you Bear. I wish it was because then you would have told me you loved my photo. At least someone would have loved it. lol |
Sorry to hear that, but glad you weren't annoyed at a comment of mine :-) When I go into dictionary mode I can be overbearing, I know. I hate myself in the morning too :-)
R. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 04:12:32 PM · #59 |
How do people feel about titles that try to explain, (economically) somethign that may appear "fake"? For example, I frequently get "oversaturation" comments on sunsets thata ctually LOOKED like what I have posted. People vote you down 'cuz they think it's "all photoshop". Now, I certainly have enhanced the heck out of images from time to time with photoshop, but I'm doing it a lot less now I have the dSLR.
So I'm tempted to title like: "January Sunset ΓΆ€” straight from camera" to try to forestallt his, but that seems so DREARY and I doubt I'll ever do it. I sympathize with those who feel compelled to say somethign liek this, though; there are no second chances, and it's really depressing to have a good, natural image downgraded because people assume some photoshop trickery is involved...
R. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 04:21:32 PM · #60 |
| Hey Bear, I think the people who want sunset on steroids are going to be disappointed whether you call attention to it in the title or not. We have become so accustomed to hyperreality in the digital format. There are some of us who still appreciated subtlety, but I doubt you are going to win many converts with a title adjustment. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 04:23:03 PM · #61 |
Based on the importance many seem to attach to titles, I've modified my decision.
Images that are titled will be titled with only a single word if possible, two at most.
There.
:) |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 04:23:42 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
How do people feel about titles that try to explain, (economically) somethign that may appear "fake"? ...
So I'm tempted to title like: "January Sunset ΓΆ€” straight from camera" to try to forestallt his, but that seems so DREARY ... R. |
I feel very negative about these type of titles. I understand why people do this...but it doesn't really mitigate the pain of reading them.
When I go to a gallery or museum I first view the image, then the title, then the details. I have yet to see a title such as: "Wine Glasses--my very first photo with this camera taken under poor lighting conditions at my girlfriend's house, straight from camera b/c I don't know how to post-process." It'd be about as appropriate as "La Giaconda" having the title "Girl in Oils on Cheap Canvas" -- point being that these "notes" are just that, details of the making, not the title of the image.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2006 04:23:55 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hey Bear, I think the people who want sunset on steroids are going to be disappointed whether you call attention to it in the title or not. We have become so accustomed to hyperreality in the digital format. There are some of us who still appreciated subtlety, but I doubt you are going to win many converts with a title adjustment. |
I'm referring to the OPPOSITE; it LOOKS like it's on steroids but it's just naturally outrageous, and the "hates steroids" crowd votes it down for that reason.
R. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 04:25:57 PM · #64 |
| "I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please all of the people all of the time." --Bill Cosby |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 04:26:32 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
How do people feel about titles that try to explain, (economically) somethign that may appear "fake"? ...
So I'm tempted to title like: "January Sunset ΓΆ€” straight from camera" to try to forestallt his, but that seems so DREARY ... R. |
I feel very negative about these type of titles. I understand why people do this...but it doesn't really mitigate the pain of reading them.
When I go to a gallery or museum I first view the image, then the title, then the details. I have yet to see a title such as: "Wine Glasses--my very first photo with this camera taken under poor lighting conditions at my girlfriend's house, straight from camera b/c I don't know how to post-process." It'd be about as appropriate as "La Giaconda" having the title "Girl in Oils on Cheap Canvas" -- point being that these "notes" are just that, details of the making, not the title of the image. |
Yeah, that's why I don't do it, but it is maddening when people vote down for something they see as "artificial" which is really natural, sigh.
I've often wished photographer's notes were available to voters, but it probably would cause more problems than it solves.
R. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 04:33:06 PM · #66 |
At DPC, where we have themed challenges, every photo starts off with the default title of the challenge -- "Untitled" would be better read as "Unchanged" or something.
A large number of our members do not speak English as their primary language, so I try to be tolerant of odd or mis-spelled titles, but definitely appreciate clever or perceptive ones which add to my understanding of the photographer's overall vision.
I'm pretty sure that the titles are often the best part of my own photos ... |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 04:35:10 PM · #67 |
| Oh, and we recently moved the titles to below the photo so those who wish an initial view of the photo with eyes uncorrupted by text have the option to do so, while it's a simple scroll for those who want to read it.. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 04:39:47 PM · #68 |
Last night I was rating a photo and had not taken note of the title. When I saw the title, I went back and looked at the photo again. The title made reference to something in the photo that was almost insignificant and, in my opinion, irrelevant to the photo. For me, that's a distraction.
I usually don't care about the titles, but when the title has little or nothing to do with the photo ... in such an obvious way as the one I experienced last night ... then the title does come into play, for me.
JMO. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 04:54:17 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by ubique:
... prosaic subject, mediocre photograph, and it finished top 10. I hate it, and it's my highest-ranked image! It could only have been the title, I suppose. |
Brilliant example, ubique!! I bet many people would have viewed this photo differently (whether they realized it or not) had you titled it "post" or "wire". |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 05:47:28 PM · #70 |
And then you have people that go off the deep end and do stuff like this:
Sometimes, it's a "gestalt", it's the artist and poet in harmony and getting hammered :-)
Robt. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 06:09:32 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by bluenova:
I love this photo  But it was voted down, I can only guess because of the title.
I like to take photos, but I sometimes find it hard to add a title to it. I like it when a picture can speak for it's self, and I don't think it should be mandatory to add a title. In future I will put 'untitled' if I don't want to specifically say something (in words) about a
picture. |
JPR's my main man...I love his work but that is a Full Metal Stinker of a title (LOL...too funny) but I would have nailed him for bad taste on that one without question....RFLMAO...(I can't stop laughing at that one and people here at work are starting to stare)
EDIT: In fact, I did nail him with a 4. |
hahaha! I just found this thread cause I noticed some new comments on that photo.
Sometimes I give my photos awful titles and I won't apologize for it. My brain just works differently from other people and my mom says that's what makes me special ;)
Actually, there was a really long explanation about the coincidences that led me to use that title that I won't go into now because it is no excuse but lets just say that if you were with me the day I shot it you would think it was an excellent title. Of course, you weren't, nobody was, so I guess it's like a tree falling in the woods...
I am curious what score it would have received if I had titled it differently though.
And while we're on the topic. By far my best title, and also my best scoring image percentage wise was actually this one:
 |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 06:35:41 PM · #72 |
Sometimes you can really rub people the wrong way specially when politics are involved. My title was to imply the wrongs of war, many people misunderstood.
 |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 06:39:22 PM · #73 |
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 |
I think they go hand in hand in some instances, and there is a skill in titleing just as much as entering something.
BUT, there are examples. I have seen photos do well with an "untilted". The stealth approach. Seems to work ok, and I think it is a bit of clever reverse psychology on the voter sometimes. Sort of like saying "What would YOU name it?"
Then again, you can enter a photo of a bird, and just name it "bird". Some people like that simplistic approach. But if you name the same picture "my son's favorite bird", it is an emotional approach. If you also name the same photo "flying bird", then to me its a bit of a bore and can turn off the approach all together, as to me it is too cliche. I won't down vote it, but I will also think that no real thought went into it either. Then there are the more clever approaches, like "on the wings of love" or "just for me" (as in he flew just for me that day) or something to that effect, which to me would say thought went into it.
So with all the different approaches, they DO bring a bit of emotion to the voting process, IMO. I am not sure it matters all THAT much voting wise. I don't vote photos down by the title, unless both photo and title are abusive or distasteful. I vote on the photo, but the title does ADD to the overall appeal I would think.
Rose
Message edited by author 2006-01-17 18:41:02. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 06:42:43 PM · #74 |
It is interesting to look at the current front page and see how the titles work for winning photos.
"Utilitarian" titles, simply a description of the photo. I think these would have done just as well with something different.
    
Pizzazz - picture defines title. It doesn't seem to "pizzazzy" to me, but I certainly didn't knock off any points.
"New York Times" - Utilitarian at first glance, but could be taken as a double entendre kind of thing.
"Exhaust" - not sure I would have known what to make of the photo without the helpful title.
"Urban Reality" - this title affects how I view the image - adds a touch of sadness/starkness that goes well with the B&W and subject. I would venture to say that I might not have voted it as high with only a "utilitarian" title - but I'm probably talking about the difference between a 9.5 and a 10 - great photo.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2006 06:47:21 PM · #75 |
Nothing utilitarian about this title; I'd call it "descriptive" and I think it's important:
R. |
|
