Titles

[BradS]

Nothing ruins a good picture like a title.

Not sure who said/wrote it but lately, I find myself agreeing with this sentiment. I like the way Stephen Shore titles his photos in his early work (maybe he still does?). He simply uses the place and date - "Dallas Texas, June 1976" and leaves the rest up to the viewer. I like that. I don't like to be told what to see - which is all too often what the title does.

What are your thoughts on how to title a photo?

 

[Dali]

I find titles to be too often conceited or meaninless in a sense that it does not bring anything more than the picture.

 

[Pieter12]

i whole-heartedly agree. Location and date and maybe the name of the subject, are really all you need. Additional information can be included as a caption (I think of Diane Arbus's work in "A Box of Ten Photographs") to give better understanding of the subjects or situation involved, but poetic BS makes me nauseous.

 

[removed account4]

I make sure to title my photographs, every time. sometimes I even say NSFW, nothing like click bait

 

[MattKing]

I like and use titles, because assigning a label to something one shares helps people to communicate about that something.
If you share your work with anyone, they make it so much easier to enter into a remote discussion about that work.
Some times they can be fun as well - my postcard in round 52 of the Photrio Postcard Exchange is a scene from under a bridge, which I had fun by giving it the title "Troll Search".
In a relatively small percentage of cases, the title is important to understanding the context of a photograph, and therefore the photograph itself. I see no reason not to take advantage of that.

 

[awty]

My pictures are stories, stories need titles or symbols.

 

[ignatiu5]

I used to not title anything for the reasons given by the OP: I didn’t want to bias a reaction. I almost always title things posted online now, for the reasons @MattKing suggests. While I shoot a lot of genres, most of what I post online involves model photography, and it’s for the purpose, generally, of having models see my work and similarly want to work with and/or hire me. It’s much easier, in my experience, for them to remember and refer to a title than a date or a code when we are discussing things they like, or don’t.

I don’t particularly care one way or another how others refer to their own art; it's not any of my business.

 

[Maris]

Titles? Yes, to refer to one photograph instead of another in a critique or a catalogue without having to fully describe the visual content every time.
Captions? Occasionally, if there is interesting narrative content associated with the photograph.
Untitled? Never, even if the word "untitled" is followed by a Roman numeral (or suchlike) to set the order of a series of photographs: too pretentious.

 

[eddie]

You name your children, don't you?

 

[Sirius Glass]

No, I will state the location and or date though.

 

[eddie]

No, I will state the location and or date though.

I like it. Something like, "Drunk, Kitchen Table, 1994".

 

[MattKing]

You name your children, don't you?

No, I will state the location and or date though.

Conception, or birth?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Conception, or birth?

Consumation

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I prefer to let a photo stand on its own without any help from me. The viewer brings their own life experience to the party and my intentions, directed by a title, might get in the way of their equally valid interpretation.

They are “titled” more for organizing than anything.

Canoona Falls, Princess Royal Island, north coast B.C. is my avatar, for example.

 

[jvo]

titles can provide context - especially for a single image.

think of "migrant mother" by dorothea lange... if you weren't familiar with the picture and i titled it "my son returns from the war" it would be a different context for the same picture, different meaning.

and yes, something titles can be pretentious, or difficult, or no help, think "untitled."

 

[Vaughn]

I do everything I can to influence the viewer with my work; subject matter, light, composition, contrast, framing -- why not a title, too?

Usually place and date...but occasionally more. The below image was conceived with the title.

"Mistaking the Map for the Territory", 4x5, 150mm lens, 16x20 silver gelatin print.

 

[Renato Tonelli]

Titles? Yes, to refer to one photograph instead of another in a critique or a catalogue without having to fully describe the visual content every time.
Captions? Occasionally, if there is interesting narrative content associated with the photograph.
Untitled? Never, even if the word "untitled" is followed by a Roman numeral (or suchlike) to set the order of a series of photographs: too pretentious.

This is the approach I have taken of late.
A lot of photographers are very resistant to captions, but occasionally, a caption can go a long way to make a viewer understand why the photograph was taken.

e.g. A few years ago I photographed a rustic fountain made of local stone; it is well made, comes out of the side of the mountain, the water is super cold and very good; people stop to bottle it up and bring it home. That's not the reason I took the photograph; I was told that in 1918 my grandfather was taking his very ill child to the hospital and realized that his son had died in his arms when he reached the fountain. Without a caption, much of the meaning that I get from the photograph would be lost on the viewer.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Well, if you submit one for a rating, nothing like creating interest by titling it, "Dangerous Animal at Sunset".

 

[Ko.Fe.]

To me good photos needs no titles. I don't see titles under HCB, GW and VM photos. VM photos came as bunch of negatives and they are all good without titles.

Title for photo is like telling anecdote to someone who needs to be explained why it is funny.

But description then and where it was taking is very good option, IMO.

 

[Jim Jones]

Some would say, "A good photo deserves a good title: a poor photo needs one!"

 

[BradS]

Some would say, "A good photo deserves a good title: a poor photo needs one!"

I would say exactly the opposite.

 

[BradS]

I really bristle at being told what to see or how to interpret the picture. It's feels like being bludgeoned.
The other day, I saw a picture with a clever title, the title was a play on words that related to the subject matter. It was telling me what to see. I hate that. The picture would have been much better if the title hadn't told me what to see.

I strongly agree that titles are necessary to help distinguish one picture from another - to allow one to easily and unambiguously refer to a specific picture in conversation for example - but please, do not tell me what to see.

 

[faberryman]

I am not a fan of titles. Too much trouble to think them up, and when I do, I can’t remember them, so I have to look on the back to remind myself. I not a famous photographer so I am not too concerned about making critics’ and historians’ jobs easier. I had a show a couple of years ago, and got some of those push pins with numbers on them so that my images could be easily referred to. The push pin number was easily as enlightening as a title.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Dangerously I haven't reviewed my own titles in the Photrio gallery before posting this, but for myself I tend to prefer something straightforward and descriptive as a title.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If I do not see it, the photographer missed it. Rarely does a photograph NEED a title but sometimes it is needed for clarification. Whatever floats your boat.