I agree completely. I don't think of my photographs as being of objects, but rather of relationships - near/far, smooth/rough, - and patterns. I'm at a loss to know how to title them. I went through a period of giving them Chinese names, but I don't like that either. I'm now giving my landscapes names related to their location, but that's not really satisfactory either.
If you process your photos to archival standards hiping to have them last for a long time and for them to be a legacy then a descriptive title can be very meaningful say 100 to 200 years from now.
For example Ansel Adams photo of Hernandez New Mexico... the title is meanigful in terms of what was photographed.
AA's title is more factual than descriptive. He didn't attempt at all to describe his feelings or to interpret what he saw.
Originally Posted by Claire Senft
e.g. The title isn't Romantic moonrise over the quaint village of Hernandez of New Mexico, or Frozen Moonrise over the graveyards of Hernandez.
He simply stated what the photo is of.
I love it when people title their photographs names that they were unable to achieve.
"I didn't quite capture it so I'll call it that so you'll think that maybe I did."
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
Michael - thanks for the suggestion. I'll be using that soon...
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Of course I am one of the ones who feels I need a crutch once in awhile LOL. But sometimes a title just jumps out at you, just as the title you called this one did for you. http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphot...cat=500&page=1
But I can see your point, some people just can't get beyond the title an artist has given a work and frame their interpretation in that context. In that case either the photo was very weak or the person viewing it doesn't have well defined critical thinking capabilities.
Interesting example Eric. I would regard that as an interpretive/emotive title that attempts to speak for the image. I would have just used the name of the factory or perhaps the type of machinery, as the title. The image already says, "this is an old factory with a lot of equipment, and a lot of people worked here at one time, but not anymore." Calling it something like "Silent Industry" takes away from the viewer the opportunity to draw that conclusion, which is part of the process of appreciating the photograph. In this case, I think the image is very strong, and the title weakens it.
hmmm what photo is that link to? oh mine! ROFL!!!
Originally Posted by Eric Rose
yah.. it's a bit cheezy, at least by my standards. I was probably up too late that night. It'd never get written on a print. I'll change it once everyone is done laughing at me.
I agree with David about the title. This image and title actually makes a good example of my point without the risk of hurting someone else's feelings.
A print of "silent industry" but without the title is above my desk at work. I get a lot of comments about it... and I never feel the need to advise anyone of the name I once concocted for it.
Last edited by ian_greant; 05-26-2005 at 07:44 PM. Click to view previous post history.
I have just posted my first photograph here, in the critique gallery. I elected to give it a title ("Waves in the Sky"), which intentionally has a double meaning, but which I didn't put all that much thought or time into. I think titles have two advantages:
1) they make it easier to refer to images in writing or in discussion, and to differentiate between images when writing about or speaking about same; and
2) they engage that part of our brain that verbalizes things.
If a title is chosen well, it has the advantage of suggesting an approach to the photograph. You may or may not want to make such a suggestion, but I think that if you do, the interplay between the words you use and the image on the print/slide/screen you see can add to the experience of the viewer.
By creating such an interplay, it is much more likely that the title will serve as a sort of shorthand, whereby being reminded of the title, invokes a clearer, more detailed memory of the image, thus enabling further appreciation for it. "Moonrise over Hernandez" is probably the most familiar example of this for many - just think how hard it would be to initiate a discussion about that photograph here if it was untitled, and we weren't able to refer to a posted image.
By no means do I expect that any of you here will have any great desire to retain a memory of the photo posted by me here, but I do think that if any one wants to discuss it, it is much more easily referred to by its title, then by an attempt to describe it (e.g. microwave and other relay towers on top of a Telus switching station in New Westminster, in near sunset light, with interesting storm cloud formations in the background ...)
I'm all for titles, Think they can be part of the moment. (some moments can be really cheesy) As much as I enjoy Blanskys tounge and cheek perspective this one was kind of mean spirited. It just seems to me that if someone takes the time to create something they have the right to classify it also. Whether it is something intuitive or just documentation it is part of who the images is.
Stop trying to get into my mind, There is nothing there!