Should we name our photographs?

[ced]

Do whatever you want.
I 2nd that! Let chaos reign and frankly who cares.

 

[David Brown]

It’s funny looking back on a thread I started more than 14-years ago. The Jacksonville Camera Club was a rigid, rules beset organization that existed mainly for competitions. ...

That is exactly what the majority of "camera clubs" are.

 

[MattKing]

I usually enjoy choosing a title, and sometimes like choosing one that some people will smile at. Words and photographs can work well together, so why not take advantage of that when it seems appropriate.
Speaking pragmatically, being able to easily identify a particular image is valuable. It can be very frustrating to try to discuss a set of photographs when the individual images are not identified distinctly.
(As for camera/photo clubs, it can be deliciously fun to join in while not caring about the competitions themselves. Provoking creativity at the expense of "scores" is always a worthy endeavour.)
Somehow I think the title of the image below - "Looped" - aids in appreciating it:

 

[bernard_L]

photographs should not be named by the photographer because, they either need to speak for themselves or evoke an emotion, which could be altered or even killed by a title. A title messes with the creative process and the communication between artist and observer.

+1.
Photography is a visual art.
Referring to the above, names can be needed:

• for reference; for that purpose a format like <Series_title>_<#_in_series> serves the purpose
• for contextual information; best left to a brochure
• thirdly, and that is where the problem lies, IMO: to describe what is on the picture, or to describe the feelings of the author because the picture by itself cannot do it (isn't that already a failure?)

The third type of naming reminds me painfully of the vacation slide projections (and here, you see...) or of those conference speakers who read aloud the bullet points of their PP (of course, one can read with the eyes 2x faster, and his/her speech is just an annoyance). Or watching a movie with the sound track for blind people (sorry, vision-challenged, but under any name their life is just as challenging).

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What should we call the Mona Lisa?

 

[removed account4]

Do whatever you want.

couldn't agree more
who cares if someone does or does not name something

 

[jamesaz]

What should we call the Mona Lisa?

La Joconde, if in France.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ralph, All your photos are named on your web site. I assume you do that so someone can name the one they want to buy. Although I don;t sell pictures, I name them so if someone want to discuss, a name makes it easy.

At our groups contests, people give names like Special Sunset, or Cute Baby, hoping to influence the judges. Me? I keep it simple. Grand Canyon 1, Grand Canyon 2, Stumps 1, Stumps 2.

I think I'll call my next submission for the contest: "Fire-Red Sunset Offset By Contrasty Prickly Pear Cactus One-Third from left SIde Balanced By Minimalist Sandy Desert Filling in Empty Presence on the Right". Just to make sure I've covered all the bases to help the judge.

good point. They are not named when shown in a gallery or book though.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

couldn't agree more
who cares if someone does or does not name something

some of the people posting here.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I can't remember if GW and HCB named thier photos. But how did they sold them? If it is portrait, it is easy. But if it is street photography and many prints? Catalog number?

 

[removed account4]

some of the people posting here.

no kidding,
they have some nerve

 

[pocketshaver]

To many people need to be told how to analyze something. Those people really have no talent on a critical level to be judging something like a photo.

Its sort of name recognition. Show a picture of a shoe, people will go meh. Title it "drive by Nike" and it will get critical love.