| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/16/2003 08:04:59 PM · #1 |
| It seems funny to me that some people are getting hung up on the way a photograph is titled. It seems that if one does not give their photo a title that is not glaringly obvious, it seems to draw much negative criticism. I am wondering how many of you actually penalize a photo for an odd title. If so, I will be consistently screwed. I tend to look at the image, and ignore the title. As long as the photo is consistent with the theme, why get hung up on a name? Just curious how you view this. |
|
|
|
04/16/2003 08:30:51 PM · #2 |
I'm very curious to know how many people would submit the images they do if they couldn't add a title.
Which might actually be a good recommendation. Not going to do the requisite browsing, but I'd be surprised to find that any of the challenge winners really needed the title to win the challenge they were entered for.
The title is part of the entry - there's no absolute necessity for it otherwise, is there? It would be perfectly possible to judge a bunch of shots without titles. I do think some entries go too far in making links between the shots and the challenge by way of the title though.
Ed
|
|
|
|
04/16/2003 08:30:58 PM · #3 |
I try not to notice a title...but concentrate on the photo. A title is just a way for each of us to label what "we" see, not necessarily what others will see!
|
|
|
|
04/16/2003 08:39:50 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by e301:
I'd be surprised to find that any of the challenge winners really needed the title to win the challenge they were entered for. |
To my mind the winner of the Fear challenge needed the title. Even then I wasn't totally convinced it fitted the challenge. It is a wonderful photo though. |
|
|
|
04/16/2003 08:42:05 PM · #5 |
;-) There was bound to be at least one ...
Ed smiling
|
|
|
|
04/16/2003 09:27:30 PM · #6 |
| I don't really pay any attention to the title before I judge a photo. I like to make sure that I can tell what the photo/purpose is before I see the title because it seems like a lot of people like to write short paragraphs of descriptions in their titles. I do sometimes comment on the need for a better title if I think the current one isn't very good, but I don't take off for it in my vote, I just do it as a suggestion. |
|
|
|
04/16/2003 09:29:03 PM · #7 |
| Don't know if my rant earlier prompted this, but... my point is: the photo should speak for itself. If it needs a title to make it fit the challenge there's something wrong with this platform. I make my judgements based on the photo itself, if it doesn't fit the challenge, it is reflected in the score. |
|
|
|
04/16/2003 09:29:43 PM · #8 |
Too many photos depend on the title -- I base my vote on the photo as it applies to the challenge w/o the title.. If it needs the title to tie it in, it's not meeting the challenge well enough.
Here's a good title with some added spam advertisement in it from this week:
WCT (Weather Control Tool) [print coming soon]
I can't wait......... |
|
|
|
04/16/2003 09:54:30 PM · #9 |
I think titles are kind of like hair-pieces, if you have a bad one, your probably better off without one. The title does give an added opportunity to show ones creativity or cleverness (or lack there of in some cases).
Personally, the following 'title' example bothers me:
Say the challenge was 'light'... You take a photo of a blue light bulb and subsequently title it 'Blue Light Buld'. The absence of a title would have been a better choice (rather than exhibiting ones lack of originality or creativity).
Speaking of titles (I'll be off my soap box shortly), I believe there are cases where some have used the 'title' to work flaws or oversites into their photo, thus making them appear non-accidental. Again... probably better to have let the photo stand on its own.
Ok, I'm down.
P.S. I think the following is a good example of a nondetrimental title.
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=16630
|
|
|
|
04/16/2003 10:19:46 PM · #10 |
This thread reminds me of Marcel Duchamp's
'L.H.O.O.Q'
sometimes the title is an inside joke, or an arcane reference
it may mean NOTHING to the viewer
but it may mean EVERYTHING to the artist as creator.That being said,
here, I try to judge based on the piece aside from the title.
A fitting title is nice, but the photo should tell the story.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2003 12:08:40 AM · #11 |
To me, the title of a photo is half the fun of creating the image. My personal preference is titles that are short and meaningful at the same time. I really like one and two word titles the best... especially when they tie nicely to the image.
My last challenge photo had a title that was not readily obvious to the viewer, but I named it as I did for a reason...
Titles that I do not particularly like are 'humorous' titles. Some of them do strike me as funny, but some don't. You have to be careful with humor because some simply won't see the humor or won't find it funny if they do...
|
|
|
|
04/17/2003 12:33:53 AM · #12 |
And actually sometimes a photo idea can come from a title. For instance...
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=16535
I was just saying macro in my head, I started doing that little kid thing and rhyming all the words. Macro...Backro...Packro...MacBacPacro. And thought...hmmm...cloth and zippers and straps, etc.
But I do agree that sometimes (and I am guilty...ie: my Pi challenge-but I thought that a nudge for people to see the numbers of Pi, as I had seen, in the degrees of 130 140 150 on the compass, and not just a round compass, was needed) that sometimes the titles are a stretch to try explain the photo.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2003 09:19:17 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by akebono:
This thread reminds me of Marcel Duchamp's
'L.H.O.O.Q'
sometimes the title is an inside joke, or an arcane reference
it may mean NOTHING to the viewer
but it may mean EVERYTHING to the artist as creator.That being said,
here, I try to judge based on the piece aside from the title.
A fitting title is nice, but the photo should tell the story. |
But at least LHOOQ is funny, although it would probably get disqualified here as other people's art :) . Occasionally we have clever/ witty titles and they can add to the picture. The Escargoh! snail shot springs to mind. |
|
|
|
04/17/2003 09:36:35 AM · #14 |
| I just went through your dilema. My camera choice the new Canon but being an emergency purchase too much. I ended up with the Minolta Hi Really had to struggle with that choice between the Sony, he Olympus and the Minolta.The price of the Olympus put it at a disadvantage and for some reason anti Nikon, I am an Olympus person at heart. The Sony was the fore runner but the had plenty invested in compact flash cards and the most important was the feel of the camera. Over the years found the the top cameras average out with their quality, each have there pros and con's but if it is not comfortable to use, you won't be happy. Ordered an eye cup on ebay for 12.95 for the Hi. Still test shooting with it. It has nice bells and whistles but time will tell. Would have liked to wait a year as the cameras get closer to the magic number of 8 meg been told by many experts that's when digital will be there. |
|
|
|
04/17/2003 12:22:51 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by hvacigar:
Don't know if my rant earlier prompted this, but... my point is: the photo should speak for itself. If it needs a title to make it fit the challenge there's something wrong with this platform. I make my judgements based on the photo itself, if it doesn't fit the challenge, it is reflected in the score. |
In many areas of art (paintings/plays/opera/dance/photography) there is a debate about whether you should see the object/performance etc. cold, or receive some understanding about intentions/background/context before viewing. some argue that they want to see it without the additional information to judge it by itself, others (including myself) appreciate the additional information that might give greater meaning to the experience (in our case here - visual experience).
in this forum, the title is the only place to provide that, and some voters often don't 'get' the situation/intentions of the photo, so i absolutely believe that it is appropriate to use the title space to give help and guidance in that area. also, a title will never 'make' a poor photo, but it can raise/bring out subtleties that might not be caught in our speed voting system, that can help make an already good photo even better through increased understanding. |
|
|
|
04/17/2003 04:21:03 PM · #16 |
I think in abstract photos, titles can give important clues but in most cases, the photos themselves should speak volumes. My 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2003 06:14:12 PM · #17 |
Titles are very important, so are photographs, pebbles, clouds, even dust. Everything is important. What is not important, often turns pout to be critical.
Titles, like so many things, are part of a whole. If a piece is untitled, then the 'un'-title is entitling the piece. Yes, the photograph should speak for itself.
The title, IMO, should not. It should 'charge' the shot or point to the photo, not to something external or itself.
This way of looking at it, of course, wakes the tired subject of 'meaning'. And 'meaning', someone once said, is that which exists by itself.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 05:51:29 AM EDT.
