Titles

[abraxas]

How do you title your photos?

Do you view titles as a necessary evil, or do you use them to effect the viewer experience?

Do you just stick with literal titles, or use puns and trickery?

Why does it matter, or not?

 

[jlykins]

As far as on here, I try to make it an interesting title. It seems that if you have an interesting title, or a NSFW after the title people tend to view the thread more. As far as for other thing(photo contests) I try to title it as what the photo means to me, or how I felt when I took it. A good example is Mya lovers recent post titled "dying to be thin".

 

[eyeye]

I don't do titles. When posting a photo I just use literal terms like "mother nursing child". I just don't care for titles. If I had a photo project where I wanted to tell a specific story, I may use a title to help with that, but so far I haven't had the need.

 

[Chiller]

How do you title your photos?
Some of my photos have titles before I shoot them, and some I make up after the photo. Some dont have anything at all. Depends on what Im going to shoot.

Do you view titles as a necessary evil, or do you use them to effect the viewer experience?
Funny, cause when last years calender came out, a lot of people commented on how there were no titles or locations to the photos.:lmao:
I have some photos printed at our work, on display in the office, and some have titles and some dont. The ones that dont have titles, people ask. "Whats this one called" I just say..."what do you think it should be called" Then I have a title.

Do you just stick with literal titles, or use puns and trickery?
All of the above.

Why does it matter, or not?
I dont think it really matters, cause most images can speak for themselves, but sometimes a title can add a little umph to it.

 

[Overread]

I try to make interesting titles when I can - but most times I just don't have any idea and so fall back on more factual titles often. An interesting title is part of getting people to click on your photo thread and view your work and then hopefully be able to respond to what they see in the form of comments or advice.

 

[JerryPH]

Never did, never will. I find titles about as tacky and unattractive to a photo as a time/date stamp that P&S cameras put on their pics. A good picture should be able to stand on it's own.

The ONLY exception to this would be for documentary purposes... like the name of a long passed relative under them in a picture, so that future generations would know who they are looking at.

 

[sarallyn]

oh god, I have the WORST time giving photos a title. I would just not title most of my photos at all, but yes, I think it's a necessary evil. I have very few photos that I titled creatively and easily. most of my titles are utter crap, but I don't know what else to do. can't leave them blank, especially when i'm trying to build a portfolio for college. :???:

 

[JerryPH]

Hahah, I think I misunderstood!

I thought abraxas meant to like PLACE words on the pic, titling ON the picture, not adding a title to a picture on a website above the pic itself.

Nah, I do *that* sometimes, but really, I could not care less about that either. Some people like it and in some cases, it does crack me up as it does add to the pic, but this is not something I do frequently.

 

[ann]

sometimes i give an image a working title in my mind.

the only time i ever titled a photo was for a show and then only because the curator requested that something appeared on the card below the photos.

When signing a photo, i never include a title, only my signature.

 

[Harmony]

I abHOR corny titles.

That being said, my titles are generally the subject/day and the number of times it took to get the shot. For example, John's Cheeses 8. It could be anything inside John's Cheeses shop, and that's the eighth shot I took there. However, I occasionally title my photos if they mean something to me. But only above the photo on a website, never on the photos, and never on the borders.

 

[Fox Paw]

My songwriter/musician side thinks that a song that requires an introduction isn't a very good song. The song should speak for itself. I tend to think that's even more true of a photograph. A viewer should meet the image head-on, without preconceptions formed by a title. When I post here, I pick the most mundane titles I can think of.

 

[kundalini]

I title threads in a misguided attempt for people finding enough of an interest to open it, look at the image or dialogue...... and hopefully make comment. The photos....:meh:...... sometimes if I really like it, I'll give it a title so the search to find is easier.

 

[abraxas]

I like to use titles (esp. on the internet) as a direction for what I'm attempting to communicate. One to a few words to express my intent- The first note that sets the tone (I like the music analogy). In the difference between the title (clicked on) and the image (viewed), the audience can be set up to see what they expected, or not. There's a lot of potential for power in those one to few words.

 

[JerryPH]

There is power in words, no doubt, my friend... but is it needed? In the end, that depends on the composer and musician.

 

[Yemme]

I normally name it from what interested me to take the shot in the first place. I keep things simple unless it's a cute image, then I might spice it up.