the capture is only half of it!

[captain-spanky]

the naming of a photo can he harder than taking it in the first place!
It's strange... the name can alter the perception of an image but it is still the same image... would a rose by any other name, smell as sweet?
does a photo *have* to have a title? Would a number (or some other non-connected reference) as a title detract from the impact or excentuate the image?

 

[Luminosity]

[hijack] Titles aside for a minute ...
all I wanna know is what is UP with that smiley :shock: [/hijack]

 

[StvShoop]

i never name any of my 2d work. it's easier to let the pic do all the talking, because if it's moved quickly to another place of display, it's uncertain if the name will be displayed well, and that can detract from the piece. it's just simpler to not have one

any pics i post on here (still so few :cry: i gotta get working), the title of the thread is not the title of the photo. i simply use the thread title to draw attention.
seriously, i pass up a lot of threads on here based on their names :shock: there's just so many new posts every day

i do name my architectural models though. Betty was my first friendly one, and Bertha saved my grade completely. models are people too

edit: lol, yeah lumi. i guess it is kinda random

 

[terri]

Sometimes the second I look at an image of mine, a name comes, unbidden, so that is what the picture becomes to me. It just seems to happen that way so I don't fight it or make a big deal out of it. But I never try to force one, no. If I have to put "something" down on a tag for display it's just "untitled".

 

[Corry]

I'm with Stvshoop, the titles of my threads aren't the titles of my pics. Except for recently with the squirrel pics I posted, I've never really put captions or anything up. Heh heh...that thread just NEEDED captions!