Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Titles!

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Catfish2
Catfish2 e2 Member 341 forum postsCatfish2 vcard United Kingdom
21 May 2011 - 9:30 AM

Hi, I'm Bruce from The Long Mynd in Shropshire.

It would not be usual for me to join such sites but have recently joined EPZ in a kind of, 'well i'll give it a go' sort of way. To my surprise, in only a few weeks l find the the whole atmosphere here very friendly and helpful, especially the critism which has inproved the quality of my photography no end Smile

One aspect of the gallery that stands out to me, it's the titles. Whilst the quality of the subject matter and the shots are superb, many of the titles actually detract from the shot. Sometimes a very well thought out shot, in picture substance, is spoilt by the total lack of adventure in the title. For example, a shot of a deer in a field has the title 'deer in a field', well there's a surprise, who'd of thought of that! obviously no one! Maybe a shot of the sunrise, instead of 'Sunrise', was it good for the photographer that it's coming up ' Oh! Not Another One' hoping it's not like the last or 'Thank Goodness' saying hope it's a better day today. These personal 'Expressions' of the shot reflect what the picture means to the taker and add just that extra bit of flavouring to the subject, wouldn't you think?

I am suggesting that the title becomes apart of the pictures assessment when it comes to voting. Something extra, vote+ for example, just a way of showing an appreciation of the photographers own reasons for the shot, reflected in the title and creating added interest and indeed intrigue into the reasons behind it or maybe not as the case may be, just because it's there also!

Anyhow, food for thought, what do you think? Thanks for your time Bruce

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
21 May 2011 - 9:30 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

cattyal
cattyal e2 Member 95960 forum postscattyal vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
21 May 2011 - 9:36 AM

You've been looking at my titles haven't you? I'm a disaster with titles - especially when I've done a set of similar shots and have enough trouble coming up with a name for the first let alone the rest Smile

That's my offering for now - gotta get into town to pick up some mounts - and maybe take the fisheye in with me to play as well.....

Last Modified By cattyal at 21 May 2011 - 9:37 AM
Catfish2
Catfish2 e2 Member 341 forum postsCatfish2 vcard United Kingdom
21 May 2011 - 9:41 AM


Quote: You've been looking at my titles haven't you? I'm a disaster with titles - especially when I've done a set of similar shots and have enough trouble coming up with a name for the first let alone the rest Smile

That's my offering for now - gotta get into town to pick up some mounts - and maybe take the fisheye in with me to play as well.....

Well you're on the button this morn only just stopped typing Tongue

keith selmes
21 May 2011 - 9:59 AM

I hate choosing titles.

I don't mind "deer in a field". Its kind of classical. Great painters used to spend months on their canvas, and then call it something like "mares and foals" or "the hay wain".

The last picture Vincent van Gogh painted was a landscape of some wheat fields. He called it "Wheatfields". Smile

There are some titles we should avoid though. Animal photos called "are you looking at me ?"
and flower photos called "pretty in pink". The first time you see one its OK, but the tenth its getting a bit wearing. Perhaps we should have an FAQ list of titles to avoid ?

Any more done to death gut wrenchers we shouldn't use ?

And I do really look forward to any useful advice on how to choose titles.

RogBrown
RogBrown  72996 forum posts England10 Constructive Critique Points
21 May 2011 - 10:06 AM


Quote: Any more done to death gut wrenchers we shouldn't use ?

After the Rain!!! Yuck. Sad

Catfish2
Catfish2 e2 Member 341 forum postsCatfish2 vcard United Kingdom
21 May 2011 - 10:18 AM

Yeah, l take your point Keith on the Great painters, Hay Wain being a classic, just wondered if he was actually shouting Hey Wain as in 'oy you' and everyone thought he meant the cart Grin Grin Never mind.

I was just thinking from the point of folk expressing themselves in conjunction with the shot and it can be very difficult so a good one should be recognised for what it is and promotes another aspect to photography. Remembering too, you are talking painters not every day folk, and most of the painters were mad or had syphilis in those days Grin Grin Grin

HouseMartin
21 May 2011 - 10:32 AM

I'm gonna play devil's advocate on this one. While I admit sometimes a title for a shot does spring into the old noddle, often the picture is the picture and it stands on its own merit.

Novels have titles, songs have titles, it isn't the norm to write a novel or a song and then think ' I need to give it a picture now'.

A cracking shot is a cracking shot and should not always need to be augmented with an often pithy title. Background info in the description is different altogether. I think I'd rather see no title and at least some background info.

It does irk me that the upload field on here insists on something in the title field when often the image is all and, as is too often said, paints a thousand words ... without the title.

Just my tuppence worth Smile

Paul

Fishnet
Fishnet  104976 forum posts United Kingdom5 Constructive Critique Points
21 May 2011 - 10:58 AM

I HATE titles, I don't even know why we HAVE to have them, I take photos for the photos sake, not because it's a theme or has any meaning, and titles like the ones suggested in the OP make my skin crawl, the worst one is "The Eyes Have It" it makes me want to claw my own eyes out when I read it, titles like that are naff and vomit inducing, sorry.

Seeing as I am FORCED to title my photos I will just put Poppy & Bee, because that's what it is, that's why I took it and there is no hidden meaning.

Last Modified By Fishnet at 21 May 2011 - 10:58 AM
ade_mcfade
ade_mcfade  1014708 forum posts England216 Constructive Critique Points
21 May 2011 - 11:04 AM

thing is, some shots have a title which comes easily, maybe it only means something to you, the photographer, it may be based on something that just happened which isn't in the shot. those titles can add a bit of context or a story.

other shots are just impossible to name "interestingly", think of a wheat field or tree at sunset... what do you call it? Maybe add in the name of the nearest village... but many times its just the usual "foreground rock, interesting mid-ground and nuclear sky" and its hard to get something totally original.

I just gave up and called them "tree" or " field" just to put something there.

I do cringe at "after the rain" and "after the storm" - and the plethora of other cringe-worthy titles Wink

cameracat
cameracat  108578 forum posts Norfolk Island61 Constructive Critique Points
21 May 2011 - 11:07 AM

LOL....I'm with Anna & Ade on this, An image/photograph should be able to stand alone without words or title......Smile

Well for the most part, To be fair some images need them to help explain the meaning or intention....Grin

Whatever, Its a judgement call and each to his/her own as they say.....Wink

Last Modified By cameracat at 21 May 2011 - 11:08 AM
Catfish2
Catfish2 e2 Member 341 forum postsCatfish2 vcard United Kingdom
21 May 2011 - 11:09 AM

Yeah Paul, couldn't agree more. Every picture tells a or its own story, should be no need of a title.

My thinking, having seen many where i've said 'why bother', if someone makes a good effort and it enhanced the shot enough to become a valid part of the shot then a worthwhile comment might be apropiate but exactly as you say why a title field in the first place?

Recon that's a fivers worth PaulWink and thanks, enjoyed your portfolio by the way Smile

Bruce

ade_mcfade
ade_mcfade  1014708 forum posts England216 Constructive Critique Points
21 May 2011 - 11:11 AM

ok - here's a bit of fun, this is a photo I took of Anthony, lets see what title you'd come up with...

Few details you can't see from the phot...

strobist lighting
5 second exposure
next to an inner city motorway in leeds
he's looking at the rubble where an old swimming pool used to be

I called it "All the time in the world" due to his relaxed pose, the long exposure and the fact that the light trails behind him infer that the world around him rushing by as he takes his time

1-lrg-18097-1296299852-1-.jpg

sherlob
sherlob e2 Member 82256 forum postssherlob vcard United Kingdom120 Constructive Critique Points
21 May 2011 - 11:23 AM

"Out of the frame"

Last Modified By sherlob at 21 May 2011 - 11:24 AM
Catfish2
Catfish2 e2 Member 341 forum postsCatfish2 vcard United Kingdom
21 May 2011 - 11:25 AM

I think you hit the nail on the head with your title because it made me look at the shot from the angle of the title and not just from the picture content which was the reason for my original comment, your title added to the shot so became apart of its depth.

Whoops going too deep here maybe, depends eh! Good shot by the way Wink

keith selmes
21 May 2011 - 11:36 AM


Quote: It does irk me that the upload field on here insists on something in the title field when often the image is all and, as is too often said, paints a thousand words ... without the title.

I often think so. The thing that really bothers me is adding a title that encourages a preconception in the viewer - I might prefer they decide themselves what they're looking at and how they see it, rather than have someone point them in a direction. Hence no title or an empty title can be preferable.

Looking through my portfolio, I called a picture of steam engines being refurbished in the engine sheds "Engine Sheds" because there didn't seem to be much else to say about it. On the other hand "Dead Parrot" was an attempt to steer the viewer in the right direction, in case they didn't get it. Of course on my computer they just have the number generated by the camera, or if its film, an index number generated by me and the scanner. And its still the same picture.

In an exhibition, I expect to see the picture, whether its a painting or a photographic print, and then look at the catalogue or the small label next to it in order to see the title and/or descriptive details if I want to. On the internet the title assumes an importance that I don't really think it should have.

So I suppose I'm suggesting title selection is an art in itself, and getting a good one is pretty clever, but its not a major part of photography. I'm not looking for a good title, but I can be distracted or put off by a bad one.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.