[grey goat]

I hate "arty" photo titles (the capture a stranger thread is full of crap titles), and I really dislike song lyrics being used as a title, unless it holds some significance to the photo.

Almost all my work goes untitled, mostly because I can't be bothered. I'm mostly interested in photojournalism, so if I were to title my work, the title must be factual and very relevant to the photo. So I would name the place/country the photo was taken, the year, and maybe something from in the photo.

I agree. Arty or artsy titles are a huge turn-off for me.

I'm a songwriter, and I can't imagine ever wanting to use song lyrics as a title.

Factual and relevant--I like that. Concrete nouns or place names. Genus and species.

Generally I like the Cartier-Bresson type approach - the title was mostly just a basic statement of location or street. Other street photographers do this too, not just HCB, his just stand out in my mind. I think it's good - it doesn't lead the viewer but gives a context, and is somehow also part of the understatement (or something) which defines good street stuff. Small moments, great images.

Personally I almost always really dislike photo titles which impose or imply an emotion on a subject in them. Even worse if it's staged. But even street ones that are titled to try and tell you as the viewer what the people in them are thinking or feeling = instant dislike.

Yes, Cartier-Bresson knew what he was doing, with camera and titles. Ansel Adams, too, for that matter, though he was about as far from street photography as you can get. (Although his often overlooked photographs of Manzanar are very different than his more well-known work, they, too, have simple titles.)

Abstract nouns and philosophical phrases fall into that "let me tell you what you're supposed to feel about this photo" category. They're almost always huge turn-offs for me. If the photo can't stand on its own, it should be led posthaste to the nearest trash bin.

On the other hand, I think leaving a photograph untitled makes it hard for the viewer to talk about the work. True, I think a photo has to stand on its own, but a simple, factual, concrete, reality-based title lets that happen without imposing on the viewer. And it makes it much easier to refer to a photograph.

For instance, that photograph by Cartier-Bresson? The one with the man leaping from a board over some water near a railroad, and you can see his reflection in the water, and there's a ballet poster on a wall in the background, mirroring the man? Isn't it easier to use the title? "Behind the Saint-Lazare Station, Paris, 1932"?

My titles are almost always simple, factual. The intention is to give the photograph the opportunity to stand on its own rather than loading it will all manner of, well, whatever.

That said, I have tons of photos I've never titled, mainly because I haven't printed the negatives or edited the DNGs. And sometimes I give photos simple working titles that might change if and when I print and prepare them for display.

Anyway, it's good to think about our rationale for titling photographs. And for the photographs themselves.

Good thread.

[JP_Seattle]

I just swallow a few drops of LSD and 10 hours later all of my photos have very unique and creative names. It's like magic!

[Pentaxie]

Normally I do not give titkle to my photos unless they are for exhibition or some contest. Most of my photos get a number as their title.
When I give titles to my photos, I always used simple name, for example " Morning dews", "highest mountain in S.E.A" etc.

Cheers.

[RoxnDox]

I usually title a photo when I am posting it to here or DeviantArt or sending e-copies to family members & friends, either because the sites require a caption/title or just to have a name that describes the photo.

When I pick a title, it's usually something descriptive. I have used things like "Nebraska Sunrise mm_dd_yyyy", "Lucas at Seattle Center Fountain", etc. As to what inspires a title, well, I guess it just varies. Never tried mescaline though

Jim (only 30 posts to go for my first thousand)

[quiksilver]

I would have to say, the image creates the title and caption. For myself whatever comes to mind that doesn't seem to obscure. However, sometimes i do tend to think about it too much and revert back to my original thought.

[jct us101]

So there's basically nobody else here who uses the creative titles that I do? Most of you just usually go and title your photos something practical? That's very interesting, because most of the people that I know on Flickr will give their photos some inspirational titles or some titles that are from song lyrics, or something along those lines, but I rarely see one who doesn't have any titles like those.

[HypnoCin67]

I hate titling photos--I am always envious of people who can come up with titles effortlessly (maybe they don't. . . For all I know, it takes them hours to come up with those titles! lol!) I title them for the magazine I work for, but with basic things like, blah blah blah 5986. . . I, too, mostly make the fancyesque titles for ppg submissions. . . And even then, my titles usually suck! Cindy

[rparmar]

Abstract nouns and philosophical phrases fall into that "let me tell you what you're supposed to feel about this photo" category. They're almost always huge turn-offs for me. If the photo can't stand on its own, it should be led posthaste to the nearest trash bin.

Oh dear. How boring things must be in your neck of the woods. Everything correctly labelled with words that cannot be denied, redundant words, dead words.

I guess they said the same thing about the talkies. Can't film stand on its own without this horrible soundtrack?

A shame you can't see that some images might work even better with words and that for some people the two are connected.

So there's basically nobody else here who uses the creative titles that I do? Most of you just usually go and title your photos something practical?

Hey, you missed my post? With the big images and poetic titles?

[Rense]

I give titles to many of my photos, and the ones (read: thousands) that remain unnamed are mostly not worth to be seen. So, my better ones get titles. Descriptive, moody, sometimes series-names, whatever, just what comes into my mind. Usually I don't look for titles, they are there when I need them.

[Cosmo]

So there's basically nobody else here who uses the creative titles that I do? Most of you just usually go and title your photos something practical? That's very interesting, because most of the people that I know on Flickr will give their photos some inspirational titles or some titles that are from song lyrics, or something along those lines, but I rarely see one who doesn't have any titles like those.

Creative titles always sound pretentious.

[jct us101]

Oh dear. How boring things must be in your neck of the woods. Everything correctly labelled with words that cannot be denied, redundant words, dead words.

I guess they said the same thing about the talkies. Can't film stand on its own without this horrible soundtrack?

A shame you can't see that some images might work even better with words and that for some people the two are connected.



Hey, you missed my post? With the big images and poetic titles?

Of course I saw your post Robin, but you're the only other one it seems. Most of the people in this thread think that you're pretentious or something if you use fancy titles, but sometimes I think that it can really give more power to a photo. Here's an example from my Flickr photostream.



I titled this: "Another try before I kiss the sky"

I have no idea where that title came from, I think it was from a song lyric or a Twitter update that I read, honestly, but I think that it really fit that photo, and anyone reading it would get the same kind of feeling when they saw it. Does it have any different effect for anyone reading it than it would have if it just didn't have a title? Or if it said "Golden Gate Bridge at night"? I'm really curious for some feedback on this one.

[Cosmo]

Pretentious.

[jct us101]

Pretentious.

Pretentious is a pretty rude and sloppy answer, if you're going to say something like that then you're going to need to back it up or else you're just going to scream troll to me. Sorry but pretentious as a single word answer doesn't work. Tell me WHY it is.

[rparmar]

Creative titles always sound pretentious.

Anything creative is pretentious, by definition! It's much better to sit in a hovel and do nothing. Apparently.

[Cosmo]

Pretentious is a pretty rude and sloppy answer, if you're going to say something like that then you're going to need to back it up or else you're just going to scream troll to me. Sorry but pretentious as a single word answer doesn't work. Tell me WHY it is.

Sloppy? I think it's straight to the point.

How does that title fit the photo? or have any relevance to the photo. It's a completely unconnected title that seems to attempt to give the impression of artisticness, to try and convince the viewer that you have artistic merit, and maybe to try and distract from mediocre photography (not aimed at you, just another reason I dislike these sorts of titles).