Naming your images on the gallery

Perhaps not the right section, so mods please move as you think.

Sometimes I put an image on the gallery and someone suggests a better title that I hadn’t thought of. Can I encourage more people to offer alternative titles to images? As for future publication, I find this quite useful.

Not sure I follow you. What is the goal? Are you asking for help in coming up with more creative titles for your work in hopes that it will make the work more marketable?

runswithsizzers said:

Not sure I follow you. What is the goal? Are you asking for help in coming up with more creative titles for your work in hopes that it will make the work more marketable?

Click to expand...

Not more marketable, but more meaningful.

I enjoy coming up with titles both for my own photographs and, when it is appropriate, for others.
@PhotoBob would probably be willing to attest to that.
It is probably the old headline/cutline writer in me.
It is rare* that a title will be important to the photograph itself, but it is often the case that having a word or phrase identified with the photograph makes discourse about it much simpler and more useful - something like "that photo of the tree at gate" just doesn't cut it when you want to discuss an image with others, and where "Sentry" is available.

*Exceptions include when appreciation of a photograph is greatly enhanced by knowledge of its context.

I hate titles. Just the facts, thanks.

MattKing said:

I enjoy coming up with titles both for my own photographs and, when it is appropriate, for others.
@PhotoBob would probably be willing to attest to that.
It is probably the old headline/cutline writer in me.
It is rare* that a title will be important to the photograph itself, but it is often the case that having a word or phrase identified with the photograph makes discourse about it much simpler and more useful - something like "that photo of the tree at gate" just doesn't cut it when you want to discuss an image with others, and where "Sentry" is available.

*Exceptions include when appreciation of a photograph is greatly enhanced by knowledge of its context.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Pieter12 said:

I hate titles. Just the facts, thanks.

Click to expand...

But context means so much.

cliveh said:

But context means so much.

Click to expand...

The facts provide enough context in most cases. I would rather leave the rest to the viewer rather than leading him or her in a certain direction.

Sure, ask away! Personally I would be curious about what titles folks may come up with for one of my images, but not at all likely to use them. Not exactly a group project.

Usually my titles are "just the facts" -- place and perhaps date. Occasionally, the creation of the image comes with a title already formed:

Mistaking the Map for the Territory
Yosemite National Park

4x5 neg, 16x20 silver gelatin print
I took this while camped on top of Sentinel Dome (backpacking), around 3 decades ago.

I'm a straight up facts kind of guy, such as, Young Hemlock (Hirsch Creek, Kitimat Valley, BC, Canada) for the photo below.

I figure everybody sees the world through their own accumulated life experience and world view. Another persons interpretation of what my photographs may 'mean' are equally valid as whatever reason(s) I had making them.

Why would I want to skew the way they look at a print by calling it something like, Reaching for the Light, Shadowed by Giants, Triumphant Distillation of the Cosmic Is-Ness, or other some such grandiose art-speak abomination?

That's a lovely shot. But Clive asked a fair question and we should respect that he wants feedback. We are not all the same.

I think much of the feedback has been to leave it alone and not suggest anything other than the facts. If Clive wants to title his images, so be it. If he is open to alternative interpretations, he should request them. But it shouldn't be open season on titling others' work.

MurrayMinchin said:

I'm a straight up facts kind of guy, such as, Young Hemlock (Hirsch Creek, Kitimat Valley, BC, Canada) for the photo below.

...

Click to expand...

Hey -- that "Young Hemlock" is probably older than both our ages added together. More like a depressed suppressed anemic SOB, waiting for one of his relatives to drop dead so he can have some good solid light for once in his darkened life. But that's hemlocks for ya...going through life, good or bad, with their heads always hanging down.

But I agree -- we do not need to tell all. But even with just 'the facts', our images about light can just become another travelogue to a viewer with his or her head bobbing down and up, down and up, tag-to-photograph, tag-to-photograph, without breaking stride along the gallery wall. So it goes.

I see titles as partly a matter of what sort of subject I'm shooting. Some things are so obvious a title is not essential at all. Sometimes I am inspired to a play on words or other humorous (in my dubious opinion) reference. So I likely wouldn't go out of my way to get suggestions, as coming up with my own is part of the fun. On rare occasion I may have even taken a shot of something to fit what might be a clever title that's been bouncing around in the open space between my ears.

Sometimes a title can add additional context about equipment used, what's being celebrated, etc., that might be useful.

An approach sometimes used by a very accomplished watercolor artist I knew, was to pick an interesting or unusual small detail that doesn't exactly jump off the print and make a title referencing it. That can theoretically cause a viewer to spend more time looking at the image ("Where'd he come up with that?!"). A hint of that is an image in my gallery here that is the anchored foot of a towering railroad trestle. Now I know the overall structure is over two hundred feet high and more than 800 feet long, but my image of about a two x two foot segment includes the builders' plate somewhat shadowed and among other distractions. I called it "1875" for the date.

A further aside -- as one who has been involved in putting up and cataloging work in shows, I'll also toss in another consideration ... If a show/competition permits multiple pieces from each individual artist, it's really helpful to the worker bees behind the scenes to have a title on various works. It helps to keep award postings, catalogs, and such straight. (But then I'm nothing if not pragmatic! )

OK,
I can find my way out . . .

cliveh said:

Perhaps not the right section, so mods please move as you think.

Sometimes I put an image on the gallery and someone suggests a better title that I hadn’t thought of. Can I encourage more people to offer alternative titles to images? As for future publication, I find this quite useful.

Click to expand...

Sure, I sometimes title others pictures.
I think I would rather that than " nice shot"

I like this idea, cliveh. I've also had the experience of someone suggesting a more meaningful title.

Most times, I feel discouraged when naming artwork. I usually resort to naming the subject matter, which sometimes feels lazy and trivial. I also cherish the very rare times that the moment I take a picture, a title pops in my head right away...I think asking for ideas could certainly lead to more meaningful titles and could be included in the description area for the upload.

Pieter12 said:

But it shouldn't be open season on titling others' work.

Click to expand...

I agree. Titling one's photographs is the prerogative of the maker.

If the maker requests suggestions - that's fine, of course.

I find most of the contributors to the gallery aren't too temperamental and are happy with any comments.

I find the most significant titles to be "when and where and who" types of titles, since, when photos are viewed in a collection, they can plot a timeline. I mostly find prosaic titles ... prosaic.

I just looked at my stuff in the gallery and it appears that I have titled most of it. Sometimes it’s a description such as location and other times I’m trying to be clever and use the title like a caption. I see a “caption” as a way to lead the viewer in a particular direction. Much of my non-photographic work goes untitled or, if part of a series, the work will have the series name followed by a number. If someone want to suggest a different title for anything I do, I don’t have a problem with receiving that kind of feedback.

After some reflection, I feel the need to walk back on my comment. Although the vast majority of my work is straightforward and the titles are simple and factual, sometimes self-evident:

Eddie's Liquors (Night)

Sometimes a more fanciful or poetic title is in order. The first one to come to mind is Man Ray's "Le Violon d'Ingres" where the title brings home the pun intended by the photo (a knowledge of French and art history might be necessary, though). I worked on a book with a poet where I made 40 photos using the titles of the 40 poems as prompts. In most cases, the title of the poem--which is also the title of the corresponding photo--adds a dimension to the image that might not otherwise be evident.

Regret

However, on the specific request of the OP, I would not readily be open to others suggesting titles for my work unless I asked. My work, even documentary work, is personal and I don't see how or why someone else's interpretation should influence the titling. The exception might be a collaborator, editor, curator or gallerist, someone who could have pertinent insight.

I almost never title anything, unless I'm just messing with someone's head. But whenever I stop procrastinating about getting my trust in order for the next generation, I'll have to either number or somehow title all those prints needing to be catalogued. I'm not looking forward to that chore, but do have up an especially nice copy station set up to digitally do it - NOT for sake of digital prints, mind you, just for sake of an accessible visual record of what has already been printed and mounted, and not sold yet.

Let me give you an example. Some time ago, I put this image on the gallery and titled it Rome. jvo suggested "3 tourists checking their guidebooks", which was a much better title than the one I used.

​

cliveh said:

View attachment 366290

Let me give you an example. Some time ago, I put this image on the gallery and titled it Rome. jvo suggested "3 tourists checking their guidebooks", which was a much better title than the one I used.

​

Click to expand...

For me, that sort of title makes the photo seem like a poor joke. I would have left it titled, "Rome" and the year and let the viewer draw their own conclusions from the image.

cliveh said:

View attachment 366290

Let me give you an example. Some time ago, I put this image on the gallery and titled it Rome. jvo suggested "3 tourists checking their guidebooks", which was a much better title than the one I used.

​

Click to expand...

What hell is that statue doing, looks very suss.