| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/19/2005 02:01:22 AM · #1 |
I just want to remind everyone to read the title of the photos to get an idea of the objective. I just got a comment on my breaking new ground photo that was referring to something they thought I hadn't intended on being in the photo. Had they read the title, they would've understood that the object was captured intentionally. No porblem, though- just wanted to give a heads up to keep voting fair for everyone. Good luck to all!
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 02:12:37 AM · #2 |
| This happens sometime and it is a good warning. Some titles are merely appended while others serve a descriptive purpose. Yes, I know, some feel that the image must stand on its own. Well, one time I commented on an image and said how wonderful it was but what is that distracting thing in the distance. I said it looks faintly like a golf flag. It turns out the name was the name of a golf course. lol I ran back like a fool to edit my comment. With so many trees and valleys, I never dreamt it was a golf course. |
|
|
|
01/19/2005 02:17:37 AM · #3 |
Who says photographers can read? :P Unfortunately sometimes after reading a title some people still don't understand where a picture was going.
It would be nice if people spend a little more time trying to understand a shot. I guess the ribbons go to the ones that hits you across the face.
Message edited by author 2005-01-19 02:18:51. |
|
|
|
01/19/2005 02:19:32 AM · #4 |
My take on titles is to not read them.
I vote on the merits of the photograph. I may sound strict, but I'm of the mind that art should be able to be understood, appreciated, or seen/heard in and of itself. A good title is just icing on the cake IMHO. |
|
|
|
01/19/2005 02:20:56 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by mykoleary:
My take on titles is to not read them.
I vote on the merits of the photograph. I may sound strict, but I'm of the mind that art should be able to be understood, appreciated, or seen/heard in and of itself. A good title is just icing on the cake IMHO. |
That's a nice concept, but in a "Breaking New Ground" challege, don't you think reading the titles is beneficial? |
|
|
|
01/19/2005 02:35:32 AM · #6 |
A title should compliment, not explain the image.
In the case of this particular challenge we are instructed to put the explaination in the comments area (not the title).
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 02:41:07 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by thewriterside:
That's a nice concept, but in a "Breaking New Ground" challege, don't you think reading the titles is beneficial? |
No. The photograph should explain everthing. Hey, it's my vote. I'll do it the way I like.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 02:48:11 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by thewriterside:
That's a nice concept, but in a "Breaking New Ground" challege, don't you think reading the titles is beneficial? |
No. The photograph should explain everthing. |
That's a good general rule, but I'm referring specifically to the breaking ground challenge.
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Hey, it's my vote. I'll do it the way I like. |
Good point. |
|
|
|
01/19/2005 02:55:54 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by thewriterside:
That's a good general rule, but I'm referring specifically to the breaking ground challenge.
|
I think it would apply more to something like the Movie Title chalenge. If I can't see it as something inovative, or at least an attempt in that direction, then no title will persuade me otherwise.
I do read the titles, but I give them little wieght.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 10:44:53 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by thewriterside:
Originally posted by mykoleary:
My take on titles is to not read them.
I vote on the merits of the photograph. I may sound strict, but I'm of the mind that art should be able to be understood, appreciated, or seen/heard in and of itself. A good title is just icing on the cake IMHO. |
That's a nice concept, but in a "Breaking New Ground" challege, don't you think reading the titles is beneficial? |
I agree with thewriterside - In some cases the title has been helpful with voting for this challenge. It's hard to see the innovation in many of the entries - if a title helps me understand, great!
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 11:47:37 AM · #11 |
The title is part of the photo. If the photo is artful, it's one element of it's art. To ignore elements of a work is not what I'd call good critical practice.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 11:57:27 AM · #12 |
I would still like to get into the photographer's mind at least a little in this challenge.... an entry titled "baby" for example doesn't tell me much of what ground was broken....experience or otherwise.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 12:02:42 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Who says photographers can read? :P Unfortunately sometimes after reading a title some people still don't understand where a picture was going.
It would be nice if people spend a little more time trying to understand a shot. I guess the ribbons go to the ones that hits you across the face. |
But I thought a picture says a thousand words???
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 12:24:32 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by notonline:
...
But I thought a picture says a thousand words??? |
Sometimes you need a thousand and three words...
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 12:37:34 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Xilebo:
I would still like to get into the photographer's mind at least a little in this challenge.... an entry titled "baby" for example doesn't tell me much of what ground was broken....experience or otherwise. |
Conundrum. The challenge description asks that description of technique and style be articulated in form of a comment and entered in the details field to be available for our perusal only after the challenge is over.
The title is not required to explain anything. If it did, it would likely pull down the photo.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 12:38:20 PM · #16 |
I don't know... this is an interesting subject.
The way I feel is, the title should not have to explain the photograph, but it should summarize the general idea. Kinda like a painting on a wall.
I think of the painting "Scream" by Edvard Munch. It simply compliments the meaning of the painting.
I do read the titles, because it is an important part of the art. But at the same time, it should not be that vague.
I don't know... just my 2 cents. :)
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 12:41:16 PM · #17 |
Thewriteside: sounds like your commenter was just playing "nice" and didn't know how to tell you flat out they hated your entry. People being nice always gets them into trouble, I say just lay it all out there!
:-) |
|
|
|
01/19/2005 12:46:14 PM · #18 |
I am getting really frusterated that people are rating my photo on its title. My Best of 2004 picture is not doing very well in this challenge because people do not understand my title (based on my 5 comments).
I would think out of all the challenges I would be able to have the most creative title I wanted because there is no theme to the challenge. Please do not rate pictures by their titles. I am sure that many of my votes have been on my photo, Im just going by all five of my comments which deal only with my title!
Maybe we shouldnt include titles in the voting area.... What do you guys think? |
|
|
|
01/19/2005 12:49:13 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by dharmeson:
I am getting really frusterated that people are rating my photo on its title. My Best of 2004 picture is not doing very well in this challenge because people do not understand my title (based on my 5 comments).
I would think out of all the challenges I would be able to have the most creative title I wanted because there is no theme to the challenge. Please do not rate pictures by their titles. I am sure that many of my votes have been on my photo, Im just going by all five of my comments which deal only with my title!
Maybe we shouldnt include titles in the voting area.... What do you guys think? |
It would be nice, but entires need titles. Its part of the art.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 12:49:16 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
People being nice always gets them into trouble, I say just lay it all out there!
:-) |
Um...I'm guessing that gets you into trouble too, Goldberry...
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 12:52:55 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
People being nice always gets them into trouble, I say just lay it all out there!
:-) |
Um...I'm guessing that gets you into trouble too, Goldberry... |
LOL |
|
|
|
01/19/2005 12:53:15 PM · #22 |
Thats true. I guess im just frusterated with the titles right now. But as a photographer it is alot of fun to think of creatvie titles, which I feel like I have for my Best of picture. You know what Im saying?
Originally posted by vince31874:
Originally posted by dharmeson:
I am getting really frusterated that people are rating my photo on its title. My Best of 2004 picture is not doing very well in this challenge because people do not understand my title (based on my 5 comments).
I would think out of all the challenges I would be able to have the most creative title I wanted because there is no theme to the challenge. Please do not rate pictures by their titles. I am sure that many of my votes have been on my photo, Im just going by all five of my comments which deal only with my title!
Maybe we shouldnt include titles in the voting area.... What do you guys think? |
It would be nice, but entires need titles. Its part of the art. |
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 01:17:15 PM · #23 |
From a voter's perspective, I find that I cannot ignore a title, since it is, as zeuszen has articulated, a part of the artwork, and not separable from it. A really well-considered title can help an image greatly, IMO. It cannot make a poor image great, but can help a very good image to communcate the photographer's intent to the viewer (voter).
Conversely, a poor title can really detract. The worst examples of this, IMO, are those titles that parenthetically explain some aspect of the photo, e.g. "(no edits)". Please, oh please, refrain from literal descriptions in titles, they will not help your image.
A great title is succinct (3 words or less is great) and provides a subtle tie to, and enhancement of the emotional impact of the photo. Choose words very carefully, for their connotations as well as their denotations. Literary allusions, if understood, can be wonderful, but if most of the audience does not "get it", the effect is negative. Metaphors sometimes work well, can make a title work on two or more levels. Again, they must be widely understood, or the impact will be lost.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 01:24:32 PM · #24 |
I will agree 100% to that. Very well put.
Originally posted by kirbic:
From a voter's perspective, I find that I cannot ignore a title, since it is, as zeuszen has articulated, a part of the artwork, and not separable from it. A really well-considered title can help an image greatly, IMO. It cannot make a poor image great, but can help a very good image to communcate the photographer's intent to the viewer (voter).
Conversely, a poor title can really detract. The worst examples of this, IMO, are those titles that parenthetically explain some aspect of the photo, e.g. "(no edits)". Please, oh please, refrain from literal descriptions in titles, they will not help your image.
A great title is succinct (3 words or less is great) and provides a subtle tie to, and enhancement of the emotional impact of the photo. Choose words very carefully, for their connotations as well as their denotations. Literary allusions, if understood, can be wonderful, but if most of the audience does not "get it", the effect is negative. Metaphors sometimes work well, can make a title work on two or more levels. Again, they must be widely understood, or the impact will be lost. |
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 01:27:10 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
From a voter's perspective, I find that I cannot ignore a title, since it is, as zeuszen has articulated, a part of the artwork, and not separable from it. A really well-considered title can help an image greatly, IMO. It cannot make a poor image great, but can help a very good image to communcate the photographer's intent to the viewer (voter).
Conversely, a poor title can really detract. The worst examples of this, IMO, are those titles that parenthetically explain some aspect of the photo, e.g. "(no edits)". Please, oh please, refrain from literal descriptions in titles, they will not help your image.
A great title is succinct (3 words or less is great) and provides a subtle tie to, and enhancement of the emotional impact of the photo. Choose words very carefully, for their connotations as well as their denotations. Literary allusions, if understood, can be wonderful, but if most of the audience does not "get it", the effect is negative. Metaphors sometimes work well, can make a title work on two or more levels. Again, they must be widely understood, or the impact will be lost. |
Well said. I hope you don't mind, if I try to qualify your last statement a little: ...impact will be lost on those who not able to make the jump (required by certain literary divices).
|
|
