| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/17/2006 10:00:25 AM · #1 |
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 |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:02:27 AM · #2 |
| Agreed I dont even look at titles unless I dont get the photo:) |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:02:46 AM · #3 |
I've decided to stop titling my photos. Just a personal thing. Obviously the programming of the site wants something there, and I don't want them all titled "Untitled", so maybe I'll use the date, or the month, or something. Not sure.
A huge percentage of photos I see offline don't have titles, so mine shall stop. Scores will prolly plummet. Oh, wait, they have already done that! Hmmmm. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:04:54 AM · #4 |
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 agree, the title is incidental,but sometimes points the voter in the right direction.I wouldn't lower my vote or otherwise just on the title, but I feel if no thought has gone into the title then what thought went into the picture itself?
|
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:06:49 AM · #5 |
Mostly I don't look at the titles. However, the title can give insight into what the photographer is trying to portray.
In a lot of photo contests outside of DPC the judges don't know the title, just the contest topic. They don't even know the topic description.
Message edited by author 2006-01-17 10:07:16. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:08:25 AM · #6 |
Most great works of art have titles:-)
|
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:09:44 AM · #7 |
I would have to say, that occasionally a really bad or in my mind stupid title, can help stink-up an images concept and feel, maybe even leave a bad taste in your mouth. Conversely a great title can truly enhance an image. Some people say that an image should be able to speak for itself, 100% but that's not always the case.
Take Picasso's Geurnica...self standing it speaks volumes but the title adds context that you could never have derived from the image alone. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:11:33 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by peecee:
Most great works of art have titles:-) |
Sure they do.
I don't think it's a question of titling or not titling an image for the contest but whether the title is important when deciding likes, dislikes and technical merit. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:15:23 AM · #9 |
I look at an image, with title, as the "Whole Picture". Sometimes there are clues as to what the artist is going for, sometimes it adds a laugh or other emotion to the shot.
A picture of a face, is just a face. A picture of a face with a title can tell you something about the person in the photo, it can evoke more of a reaction then just, "Oh look, another portrait..."
There's one in the Best of 2005 challenge that could have just been a portrait of some smiling dude, but the title gave the image far more meaning and emotion, to me. It helped me justify the high score I gave it. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:17:25 AM · #10 |
mostly, titles aren't that important to me. UNLESS i'm personally trying to portray something that I don't want to be misinterpreted. I think that if you want to portray something specific to people, then the title is a great way to help you there. and it can even give extra impact to the piece.
but sometimes having a piece of art without a title can be fantastic because the viewer gets to create their own story or meaning for it. and then everyone has their own interpretation of the piece, and sometimes the viewer's take away something from it that you (as the artist) hadnt even seen.
and all in all, i dont think a "bad" title should lower anyone's score.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:18:36 AM · #11 |
I shoot way too many photos that do not even approach being a "great work of art". Many of the titles I have come up with lately are very lame, and I think they add a negative connotation right off the bat. I mean, "Duck in pond" (lack of caps intentional) doesn't really sound like a great work of art, now does it? It sounds like a photo description. I think it knocks the image down rather than helping it, and I'm personally just tired of "titling" shots.
No negative reflection on those that feel otherwise. I'm not afraid to swim alone :) |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:19:09 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
I look at an image, with title, as the "Whole Picture". Sometimes there are clues as to what the artist is going for, sometimes it adds a laugh or other emotion to the shot.
A picture of a face, is just a face. A picture of a face with a title can tell you something about the person in the photo, it can evoke more of a reaction then just, "Oh look, another portrait..."
There's one in the Best of 2005 challenge that could have just been a portrait of some smiling dude, but the title gave the image far more meaning and emotion, to me. It helped me justify the high score I gave it. |
That is how a title can help, however, having context in the image can provide the same information and IMO is a stronger image than one that needs the title to provide the context.
Since this is a learning site, the former situation can lead to comments on how to achieve the desired result better. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:22:15 AM · #13 |
A good title is the icing on the cake, it can also convey something that may not be overly obvious to the viewer or help trigger a specific emotion. I'm not the best at giving titles but I do put some effort to it.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:22:55 AM · #14 |
| I tend to agree that a title shouldnt hurt a score. But I also see where it can accentuate a great photo. As stated, it can also make an "ok" photo better. A never score based on a title, but whether an image grabs me, pulls me in, makes me want to know more and is composed well. But if it has a title that helps do that, then even better. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:23:27 AM · #15 |
Take a look at this image...
I had put little thought into the title, but having done so, in hindsight, I am sure that I could have received a higher score with the title... "Alone in the Crowd"
It was what I was attempting to convey, as it is the feeling I had when I saw that 'lone' sunflower and what I wanted to share. I just didn't think about the title.
The DOF and focus on the one flower could have been better taken with the different title. (IMHO) |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:24:35 AM · #16 |
I never vote down because of a title (or lack of one). Although some leave me going arrgghhh... Like, I hate when a title is like some long explanation, like "This is a shot of a car at night, 30 sec exposure-NO edit" ....arrrgghhhh!
But I do feel that a good, fitting title is kind of like icing on the cake and can really nicely complete a good image. A very good/cute/clever/funny title could make me appreciate the photo even more and maybe bump the score.
The titles are there. Everybody sees them. Like it or not, a title can enhance the overall presentation. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:35:03 AM · #17 |
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.
~Nicole |
I sometimes use the title for insight into what the phtogographer was trying to convey. Perhaps your title does not match the subject or feeling of your entry. In that case, I might assume the title was what you were aiming for and tell you why I think you did not achieve it. You might be able to tell if that is what the commenter was doing based on what was said in the comment. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:38:48 AM · #18 |
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.
Message edited by author 2006-01-17 10:40:36. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:43:45 AM · #19 |
| Good photos are poetry and deserve titles that at least fit if not enhance them. Take advantage of the opportunity to hint at what you think is extraordinary about your shot, because not everyone would find it on their own. Me, I'm a sucker for wit and humor (er, and really awful puns). I've seen many titles that synergize with the image to make a challenge entry worth much more than the image alone. Focus the beholder! |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:46:37 AM · #20 |
With my own photos, I sometimes look at titling as a barometer of how good I think the photo is, or how much I like the photo. With my better photos, the title just seems obvious to me. If I have a hard time coming up with a title, then the photo probably isn't too good.
I believe that titles are an important part of the presentation. They certainly affect my perception of an image, and I vote accordingly. An otherwise good photo with a lame, awkward title gets a lower vote than it would otherwise.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:49:33 AM · #21 |
It was well discussed that the title hurt this image.
 |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:51:25 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
They certainly affect my perception of an image, and I vote accordingly. An otherwise good photo with a lame, awkward title gets a lower vote than it would otherwise. |
What if it was a great photo with no title? |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:53:42 AM · #23 |
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.
Message edited by author 2006-01-17 10:59:47. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:56:54 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by bluenova:
What if it was a great photo with no title? |
I didn't think this one needed a title and it did pretty well so I assume people don't mind no title if the photographer doesn't think the image needs one. Sometimes you don't want to box people in with a title...look at Neil Shapiros work.
Message edited by author 2006-01-17 10:58:30. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:58:37 AM · #25 |
Titles are definitely a part of the package, although I would never let a title make a big difference in scores in either direction.
However, we are only human, and I believe we are all influenced by the title at least to a small degree.
Say for instance you are "sitting on the fence" between voting a 5 and a 6, then the title might be the little part that pushes you over, even if it is subconsciously. |
|
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: 04/23/2024 03:04:00 PM EDT.
