Naming your images on the gallery

[runswithsizzers]

How would you title this one? I'm thinking, "Animal husbandry"?

 

[Pieter12]

Why would you even bother to title it. The sculpture already has one and the photo adds nothing.

 

[Don_ih]

Gee....

 

[koraks]

The sculpture already has one and the photo adds nothing.

I understand the sentiment and I myself also don't like to make 'derivative art' - in this case, the sculpture already exists, a photograph can be useful to document it, but other than that...

Still - why mention it? It might be true for you, it might be true for me, but there's no universal truth or relevance to the remark, while it does carry the potential to hurt feelings.

 

[Don_ih]

A photo doesn't have to add anything to anything. The photo is not the sculpture, it never will be, so it can be called whatever he wants it to be called. The fact that it fixes a perspective alone is enough to set it miles away, ideologically, from whatever the camera was pointed at.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Why would you even bother to title it. The sculpture already has one and the photo adds nothing.

First of all, my suggestion was a feeble attempt at a joke, riffing on @awty's observation in post #25 (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

And actually, my photo does add something - a frame. By extracting a part of the world, and excluding all else, every photograph focuses the viewer's attention on something that might have otherwise gone unnoticed. By removing surrounding context, the frame provides a new context for the subject -- and sometimes the new context enables the viewer to see the subject differently (for better or worse).

As for "Why would I title it?" -- I didn't. My proposed title was hypothetical, and I think it contributes to the discussion as a sort of warning, asking, "Do we really want to go there?" That is, some titles are more about encouraging social-media type interactions, and less about discussing photography. Not necessarily a Bad Thing (in moderation), but something to be aware of.
---

In my first post (#2 in this thread), I asked the question, "What is the goal" when creating titles? I can think of several goals / categories when writing captions for online photos.

1. A descriptive, fact-based title makes it possible to search for a photo by text. When you are looking AT a photo of a man and a cow, a title such as "Man and Cow" seems unnecessary. But if you are looking FOR a photo of a man and a cow, having that text in the title makes your search much easier. EDITED: off-topic

2. The title can provide more context by answering "who, what, when, where, why?" type questions. Personally, I prefer to use captions / descriptions to provide this kind of information.

3. A different kind of context is provided when the photographer wants to commuicate more about what the photo represents, rather than just a literal description. Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux's title for the statue I photographed translates from French to, "Imperial France bringing light to the world and protecting Agriculture and Science." Just from viewing the statue, I never would have come to that conclusion without being told. All I could see was a man spooning with a cow (or bull?). The uncropped statue can be seen here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carpeaux_France_imperiale_Musee_d'Orsay.jpg

4. "Clever" titles can function in various ways -- arty / artsy, in-joke, click-bait, etc.
a. For an example of an arty / artsy title, one of my favorites is the painting by Ivan Albright, "That Which I Should Have Done I Did Not Do (The Door)."
b. In-joke titles refer to some book, movie, or cultural phenomenon that a sub-set of the population will "get" but only if they know the reference. These can be fun to write, and the viewer will get some satisfaction if they are in on the joke. But the danger of introducing such cultural references is that any discussion tends to quickly go off-topic. Title your photo, "Chevy on the Levy," and some yahoo is sure to reply by posting a YouTube video performance of American Pie.
c. Click-bait titles. Do we really want to go there? On the other hand, my favorite Ivan Albright title might go in this catagory today, so maybe I need to think some more about it?

 

[Pieter12]

I understand the sentiment and I myself also don't like to make 'derivative art' - in this case, the sculpture already exists, a photograph can be useful to document it, but other than that...

Still - why mention it? It might be true for you, it might be true for me, but there's no universal truth or relevance to the remark, while it does carry the potential to hurt feelings.

I mention it because it was proposed as a title and put in the form of a question, thereby soliciting opinions. If one is so sensitive to be hurt by my response, maybe one should not be asking such a question in the first place.

 

[Pieter12]

captions for online photos.

I don't think that a caption is the same as a title. I am also unsure that the discussion is about keywords for online searches, either. But maybe I missed the point entirely.

 

[cliveh]

I don't think that a caption is the same as a title. I am also unsure that the discussion is about keywords for online searches, either. But maybe I missed the point entirely.

You are correct, as my OP had nothing to do with on-line searches. Most of the photographs I take, I don't know why I take them, as it is an intuitive reaction with the camera. That means that I sometimes lok at an image think why did I photograph that? Others can often supply meaningful titles or captions. By the way, I'm not sure what the difference is?

 

[MurrayMinchin]

2. The title can provide more context by answering "who, what, when, where, why?" type questions. Personally, I prefer to use captions / descriptions to provide this kind of information.

Is Sportera still around?

Does anybody remember his photos posted here after New Orleans flooded? They were accompanied by descriptions where he would explain his personal connection to the photographs, such as destroyed rooms in his house or personal items found amongst the wreckage, like his sisters doll for example.

I ordered his book, which didn't have the descriptions, and I missed them.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I don't think that a caption is the same as a title. I am also unsure that the discussion is about keywords for online searches, either. But maybe I missed the point entirely.

Of the seven different types of titles which I suggested that one might want to consider, I agree that the ability to find a post again at some point in the future should have been the last item on my list, and not the first. So let's cross that one off from consideration.

You are correct, as my OP had nothing to do with on-line searches. Most of the photographs I take, I don't know why I take them, as it is an intuitive reaction with the camera. That means that I sometimes lok at an image think why did I photograph that? Others can often supply meaningful titles or captions.

I am still trying to better understand what your OP does have to do with. You say the goal is to find titles which are "more meaningful" - but more meaningful to who? You? Other photographers? Random online viewers? I am not trying to be argumentative, but only trying to narrow the scope of the discussion. For me, "meaning" in art is often vague and obscure. The title of Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux's statue is a rare example of the artist clearly saying in plain language what his work represents, "Imperial France bringing light to the world and protecting Agriculture and Science."

I suspect the "meaning" of most photographs -- what ideas or concepts a photograph might represent -- is not something most photographers could easily put into words. If a person is interested in exploring ideas which can be put into words, they would probably be writers, not photographers. I think photos function in a different part of the brain than the word part.

Perhaps photographs function more like Rorschach ink blots? We see a photo and it makes us think of something or feel a certain way. If so, a photo is probably going to have a different meaning for every viewer. If the photographer wants to guide the viewer in a certain direction, then the right title can do that.

But it sounds like you are more interested in learning whatever meanings your viewers can come up with on their own -- yes? no?

 

[cliveh]

Of the seven different types of titles which I suggested that one might want to consider, I agree that the ability to find a post again at some point in the future should have been the last item on my list, and not the first. So let's cross that one off from consideration.

I am still trying to better understand what your OP does have to do with. You say the goal is to find titles which are "more meaningful" - but more meaningful to who? You? Other photographers? Random online viewers? I am not trying to be argumentative, but only trying to narrow the scope of the discussion. For me, "meaning" in art is often vague and obscure. The title of Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux's statue is a rare example of the artist clearly saying in plain language what his work represents, "Imperial France bringing light to the world and protecting Agriculture and Science."

I suspect the "meaning" of most photographs -- what ideas or concepts a photograph might represent -- is not something most photographers could easily put into words. If a person is interested in exploring ideas which can be put into words, they would probably be writers, not photographers. I think photos function in a different part of the brain than the word part.

Perhaps photographs function more like Rorschach ink blots? We see a photo and it makes us think of something or feel a certain way. If so, a photo is probably going to have a different meaning for every viewer. If the photographer wants to guide the viewer in a certain direction, then the right title can do that.

But it sounds like you are more interested in learning whatever meanings your viewers can come up with on their own -- yes? no?

More meaningful to the viewer, whoever they are - photographers, public, gay people, every one on the planet. You are confusing the basic question by trying to complicate the issue.

 

[runswithsizzers]

More meaningful to the viewer, whoever they are - photographers, public, gay people, every one on the planet. You are confusing the basic question by trying to complicate the issue.

Sorry - I will butt out now and let you get back to discussing whatever it is that you are asking about. ;-(

 

[pentaxuser]

But context means so much.

I agree To think of a fitting title for a photo is no easy matter in many cases and suggestions can often be helpful

pentaxuser

 

[Don_ih]

I tend to agree with @runswithsizzers regarding meaning and art. I think photographs are a bit of a special case, though, since a great many of them are essentially viewable as documents (placeholders for real events or places) and the "meaning" there is more or less bound up with whatever there is to see in them. Significance is a bit of a different matter, and that's possibly where titling or captioning can come in. A title draws whatever the photo is into a relationship between the viewer and his or her understanding of whatever the title is (or means).

Also, I don't think @runswithsizzers was complicating things but just trying to get at what motivation could be had for getting someone else (or a committee of someone-elses) to name your photo. The fact is, whatever you have to show will mean or not mean anything to someone else either because of or in spite of what you say or think. @cliveh - I think you're an example of someone whose photos can stand on their own without the need of the prattling of a curator to guide the viewer's vision.

 

[Pieter12]

I think having someone else title your photograph essentially takes away from your original intention upon taking that photo.

 

[Vaughn]

Having people suggest titles will revel how the image impacts them. An interesting way to see if ones intentions do come across.

 

[MattKing]

Of the seven different types of titles which I suggested that one might want to consider, I agree that the ability to find a post again at some point in the future should have been the last item on my list, and not the first. So let's cross that one off from consideration.

Surely not the bottom of the list!
Perhaps though there is some sort of difference between a title and a title aimed at making internet searching easier.
Titles aid in enabling discourse - "Migrant Mother" is a lot more useful than "that photo with the sad looking woman surrounded by a bunch of kids, all of whom are dressed poorly, and one of whom seems to have misplaced a hand".

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Thinking more about short written descriptions accompanying photographs instead of descriptive titles.

Being a Nature photographer, there are can be things going on in my photographs where a person unfamiliar with the environment I live in won't have a clue of what's going on.

During our last romp down the channel on our boat we came across this scene...

...which may or may not be interesting on its own. Maybe a description adds more meaning/context/enjoyment/understanding?

Herring, in the hundreds of thousands, were traveling toward their annual spawning areas but teams of sea lions were cutting small groups of fish out of the larger schools and forcing them into steep shorelines. Several of these six member teams were working this shore, feeding from below, as eagles positioned themselves to take advantage of the chaos.

Might be an idea have some such descriptions printed and fixed to the back of prints, and could also be displayed alongside the prints in a gallery situation.

A photo essay/story might explain it better, but thinking single images here.

 

[CMoore]

I hate titles. Just the facts, thanks.

"Titles" or a brief explanation.?

I have never understood a reason for "Naming" photos.
It dredges up memories of those British movie comedies from the 1960s, where some "Artist" is pontificating about some ghastly sculpture or painting........... "I call this one, Death Of The Solicitor In Half Moonlight"
But the "Artist" has made a painting of a bicycle with a flat tire

If you take a picture at a racetrack or wedding or of a tree or building...... isn't the subject always obvious.?

 

[Pieter12]

"Titles" or a brief explanation.?

I have never understood a reason for "Naming" photos.
It dredges up memories of those British movie comedies from the 1960s, where some "Artist" is pontificating about some ghastly sculpture or painting........... "I call this one, Death Of The Solicitor In Half Moonlight"
But the "Artist" has made a painting of a bicycle with a flat tire

If you take a picture at a racetrack or wedding or of a tree or building...... isn't the subject always obvious.?

What I mean is that in most cases, the title of a photograph should be just the necessary facts to name the subject--and that doesn't mean the proper name but could be something like "man"-- the place and possibly the date. A picture of a racetrack with the tile naming the racetrack and maybe the location, a wedding picture naming the couple, location and date, all would be fine for me. And so would "Still life #5." Poetic balderdash reminds me of pictorialism. And no one needs to write (and no one will read) a dissertation explaining everything in the image.

There are exceptions, of course.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

All titles can be good and fun ... as long as "The " isn't the first word. As in "The school bus". Really? That's the school bus? There aren't others? The yellow bus like thing in my neighborhood that swallows up children every morning isn't a "school bus"? Gosh, no point in taking a picture of it. You've apparently already made a picture of The school bus.
Okay, off my soap box.
But please, no "The" unless the subject really is the only instance of a thing.

 

[MattKing]

What I mean is that in most cases, the title of a photograph should be just the necessary facts to name the subject

If I followed this rule, half my photos would have titles like "Tree 1" or "Rock 3"
That just wouldn't be enough fun!
Instead, I prefer names like the one I picked for this one: "Knuckles"

 

[Pieter12]

If I followed this rule, half my photos would have titles like "Tree 1" or "Rock 3"
That just wouldn't be enough fun!
Instead, I prefer names like the one I picked for this one: "Knuckles"

View attachment 366574

It doesn’t have to be fun, just a good photo. Weston’s “Pepper No. 30” doesn’t take away from the photo.

 

[Don_ih]

Weston’s “Pepper No. 30” doesn’t take away from the photo.

Instead, it makes you wonder about Peppers 1-29 - and whether or not there was a #31.

If you take a picture at a racetrack or wedding or of a tree or building...... isn't the subject always obvious.?

Titles can help differentiate and catalogue some of your work. You're probably not going to title every shot on a 36-exposure roll of film, but you may title the ones you print. Or perhaps you'll only title the ones you like.
Whenever I title a picture, though, I can't remember it.

"The school bus". Really? That's the school bus?

There are at least two: