Photograph titles

[Christopher Walrath]

My photography is for me and me alone. So I title my photography accordingly. But I do minimalize the titles in EVERY instance. A B&W image of leaves in my gallery is entitled Plant#1 - 2006 and Plant #2 - 2006. A narrow Depth of Focus shot of texture on a marble headstone is entitled Marble - 2005. So I try to leave as much as I can for the imagination of the viewer. The titles are for my own classification alone. The image is for the viewers, myself included.

 

[metod]

I don't like to name photographs, but sometimes I have no choice, as my Photo club does not accept ones without the titles. A lot of times I ask my wife to help me out with her fresh eyes and she usually saves the day. But I have to admit that sometimes a well-chosen title can help a photograph, mainly in the judging settings.

Metod

 

[Sparky]

Well, most of the time, to my knowledge, photographs are printed in books or displayed on the gallery wall with a title card. So - untitled photos get labelled 'untitled' which has sort of a huge stigma all it's own (can be sort of pretentious NOT to title them). But usually a title can refer to a given photo belonging to a series, or body of work.

A title can be a really incredible opportunity to elucidate, or to provide a stronger context for or another way of looking at, an image. For example - I have a photograph of an anvil - that is very straightforward that was shot on type 55 neg. I printed it in color (beside the point) - but the image was a bit 'lost' or something until I came up with the title "structure for harnessing gravitational forces" - which I thought was kind of amusing and kind of witty too. But that's me. But the point being - I thought it really MADE the image. It puts the mind in a certain place when looking at the photo. So - in recap - yes, I think of titling as an opportunity to alter the conceptual context of a given image. Hell, why not?

 

[removed account4]

i am on both sides of the fence here.

i dislike cutsie titles, and sometimes i title things untitled, and sometimes not.

if i title the photograph it is because i am trying to have the viewer see what i want them to see (direct them.) it doesn't matter if it is a documentary image of a building, a place, a portrait ... whatever --- the title has to do with what or who is the subject or what i want the viewer to think the subject is about (sometimes its the image, sometimes its a feeling, sometimes it is an illusion.) at the same time, i've also made armloads of photographs that i have called "untitled", because i don't have a title for them. they are abstract and can look like different things to different people (like looking at clouds or a rorschach test) so i don't bother. i know what these things are to me, but what i think doesn't matter (sometimes, its about them not me.)

 

[reggie]

I do not title photographs excepty maybe to note the location and date, like "Monument Valley, 1875 BC". I would never make a title like "Misty Dawn" (unless that was her name, of course).

-R

 

[BrianShaw]

I don't much care what others do... but I do chuckle when I can't figure out why a photo is named what it is named.

When I remember, I title mine with location and date; portraits with name and date.

When I remember, I mark these on the print or the mount.

Remembering is getting more and more difficult!

 

[BrianShaw]

I would never make a title like "Misty Dawn" (unless that was her name, of course).

That is her name. If I were her, I would be cursing my parents every time I introduced myself. But as the say... different strokes for different folks.

Butterfly (AKA Brian)

 

[Jim Jones]

I find titles essential for cataloging and storing. The title and my contact information is only on the back of framed photos. Many photos should be self-explanatory. Sometimes a title is needed to make a satirical or ironic connection. Almost any title is better than "untitled."