I have always thought that the meaning of a photograph is determined by the viewer. The subject can sometimes be the viewer, the photographer will be a viewer, but mostly strangers will be viewers. I think titles merely inhibit the enjoyment of photographs, documentary photos excepted.
I agree, but then I thought that "places", could have the name of the location. When I remember it.
You have asked for comments on your web site per se, but I would like to say that I was blown away with your photographs. Your web site and photographic style spoke to me like few others I have seen.
Thank you for sharing this.
Now, Bill, this is a very flattering compliment and I must definitely reply to it, not with a short answer.
I am of the firm belief that an artist should know where (s)he stands. An artist should know him(her)self and the level of the work. Should not be an optimist, blindly believing (s)he is a genius with astonishing masterpieces, but also should not put him(her)self down, damaging his work ability and life. There are artists who are great enough to go to either extreme and do masterpieces, like Giacometti, Picasso, Pollock, Dali, Van Gogh, Rodin and all who fought with depression and megalomania.
I cannot claim to know myself. That is a high goal, that many ancient philosophers couldn't reach themselves.
But I do know more or less my artistic level and where my goals are.
I will be completely honest with you and whoever reads this, when I say that I am at present a mediocre photographer, with poor technical skills, moderate aesthetics and with little or no originality.
I am brutally honest because I compare myself to the great artists and my goal is to create great art myself. But I am at the very, very beginning. I am still learning the basics of photography and art, am still doing basic experiments and often am held back by my own timidity and narrow scope.
This website took a lot of time, because apart from technical matters, I had trouble picking photographs to display. I was very disappointed when I went through all my negatives. Even in very photogenic places I had nothing to show and kept thinking I could do more with the people that gave their time for me.
I don't personally consider my work good, just passable.
And not only out of comparison, but also because many ideas and desires for photographs I have in my head are not realized yet and don't know if they ever will.
Unfortunately, photography needs real subjects to be created. Unlike my work with drawing and sculpture that is imaginative and free, my photos are restricted by my approach to real people and real places. I am often too timid to point my camera at someone, too uncertain to make a good composition with something photogenic, too unskilled to bring the idea to fruition.
My ideas and desires go far beyond on what I have on my negatives. And why is that lag? For many reasons, but one could group them all under the word "beginning". I am too much at the beginning. Almost ashamed to show this level to you, because I know I can do more, much more.
And that is good, right?
I mean, if an artist couldn't do more, then (s)he would be dead.
Thank you Bill and everybody else for liking the photographs.
Not so much for me (even though I do get satisfaction out of compliments to be honest), as much for you.
In another thread I wrote that making art is about pleasing oneself and that is correct. But I am happy that you derived enjoyment out of my photographs, not so much because it was me and my work that did it, but because you enjoyed that moment.
If a genie would grant two wishes, would be one to have the opportunities to make some good photos and second to actually do it without chickening out.
Thank you all.
(can't find the devil smily) Of course not me but an APUGger that has seen your progressive work since 2004.
. HOnestly, it looks good. - Simple layout, easy navigation, photos not too small. 
