What inspires your photo titles?

**rparmar** · 04-22-2010, 04:23 PM

This is off topic, but I really like that "Vanity" shot, JCT. Nice tonalities going on there. I do wish the vase was not in front off the mirror though -- it would have been great to see the full reflection of the light.

jct us101 · 04-22-2010, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

This is off topic, but I really like that "Vanity" shot, JCT. Nice tonalities going on there. I do wish the vase was not in front off the mirror though -- it would have been great to see the full reflection of the light.

Thanks! There's a lot I love about that photo and hate about it at the same time. First off, there are two variations that I took of it, one with me in the mirror, and one with me barely in the mirror (it's hard to get that angle without being in the photo myself, believe me) and I liked this one more because it was a little bit sharper. I don't think I can get back there to retry it, but if I ever was then I definitely would give it another shot because I think that has some great potential if I know how to do it right. Oh, and that was taken with the Canon 18-55mm IS lens actually.

**rparmar** · 04-22-2010, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by jct us101

it's hard to get that angle without being in the photo myself, believe me

Yeah, that's what you need a shift lens for. Pay thousands of dollars to get yourself out of mirrors!

SpecialK · 04-22-2010, 08:13 PM

Quote:

I dont title my photos. a good photo speaks for itself...

Bad ones, too.

I have exactly 1 image that I have given a title, but only if it goes in a gallery - not likely.

I may give a title to one as a mnemonic device while editing, but it goes in the exif database as "100417-0123Church".

SpecialK · 04-22-2010, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Whenever possible one should always title one's photo. It's the first direction one gives the viewer.
Whether it's a one word caption or something more verbose.
Heck, as the photo's creator, one took the time to capture the moment, select the subject and frame it in a certain fashion. Why not provide the first signage to the viewer of what one captured.

Couldn't it be left for the viewer to see and interpret in their own way?

Pentaxie · 04-23-2010, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by Jools

Whenever possible one should always title one's photo. It's the first direction one gives the viewer.
Whether it's a one word caption or something more verbose.
Heck, as the photo's creator, one took the time to capture the moment, select the subject and frame it in a certain fashion. Why not provide the first signage to the viewer of what one captured.

Yes, if the sole purpose is to let viewers see the picture in the first place.
I remember hard prints from film negatives of yesteryears, there were no title given. Yet we enjoyed the pictures altogether.

**rparmar** · 04-23-2010, 03:27 AM

Originally posted by SpecialK

Couldn't it be left for the viewer to see and interpret in their own way?

Following this line of inquiry, shouldn't it be left for the viewer to see and interpret a view in their own way? And yet the photographer takes a photo nonetheless, to present their vision, their interpretation. Photography is an aesthetic act that involves decisions about form, line, colour, framing, perspective, dimensionality etc. etc. I see no necessary reason why it should not also involve language.

Not saying it has to, mind you. I'm simply saying that there is nothing in photography that I can see that should necessarily exclude titling a photo.

Blue · 04-23-2010, 01:55 PM

It really depends on what I'm trying to do with an image. Sometimes an name them, sometimes I use a caption/annotation, sometimes both and sometimes neither. A technical image will be more literal and accurate for example.

Here is a recent example from me: (

)

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-film-slr-discussion/98610-warning-...iflex-etc.html

The actual inspiration can come from almost anywhere, time, place, thing or person.

fractal · 05-12-2010, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by rparmar

I'm simply saying that there is nothing in photography that I can see that should necessarily exclude titling a photo

I agree. And i'm not talking about a factual title. Facts can be saved for the description or album title. I've only realised over the last few days how much a title can complement an image. I guess it's that last thing a photographer puts towards an image. I believe it can give us a glimpse into the mind of the eye that shot it. In saying that, I can understand how some people do not want to/care to elaborate on that.

Some of the images I have produced confuse the odd person so I feel the need to develop titling my images to confuse them even futher. I've labeled this image as I see it.

Chameleon

Class A · 05-12-2010, 05:29 AM

I'm not a fan of titles that attempt to do more than provide factual context for the image.

I believe that a mediocre image can benefit from a witty title. But then you are succeeding as a writer not as a photographer.

I believe that a strong image practically almost loses by having an explanatory title. First, a strong image invokes feelings that go beyond words. By using words, one pulls the image down into the verbal realm. Second, a strong image speaks through many channels and you cannot support them all with just one title. By choosing one you are narrowing down how the image may speak to the viewer*.

(*) Regarding narrowing down what something means: Kubrick never revealed what "2001 -- A Space Odyssey" meant to him. He wanted people to have their own interpretation and not impose the creator's interpretation on them.

fractal · 05-12-2010, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by Class A

Kubrick never revealed what "2001 -- A Space Odyssey" meant to him. He wanted people to have their own interpretation and not impose the creator's interpretation on them.

I think you are going into different territory with films, & even music for that matter. I can't for the life of me remember seeing a film or listening to a song that wasn't called something.

**rparmar** · 05-12-2010, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Class A

Kubrick never revealed what "2001 -- A Space Odyssey" meant to him. He wanted people to have their own interpretation and not impose the creator's interpretation on them.

Yeah but that's a different matter. The film did in fact have a title, and even one many in this thread might critique as being pretentious.

So it's an argument for having titles, not against.

Class A · 05-12-2010, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by fractal

I can't for the life of me remember seeing a film or listening to a song that wasn't called something.

Originally posted by rparmar

The film did in fact have a title, and even one many in this thread might critique as being pretentious.

Sorry for not having expressed myself clearly. I just mentioned the "2001" example to illustrate my point that the creator should not try to impose interpretations on the beholder. This has nothing to do with films having titles or not.

I think an image title does impose a certain interpretation to some extent and that's why I don't like image titles.

MJB DIGITAL · 05-12-2010, 05:07 PM

my photos are titled as such:

bride getting ready 1, 2, 3, 4 etc
groom getting ready1, 2, 3, 4 etc
preceremony1, 2, 3, 4 etc
ceremony1, 2, 3, 4 etc
formals1, 2, 3, 4 etc
park1, 2, 3, 4 etc
1, 2, 3, 4 etc

**rparmar** · 05-13-2010, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by Class A

I just mentioned the "2001" example to illustrate my point that the creator should not try to impose interpretations on the beholder. This has nothing to do with films having titles or not.

But the creator is trying to say something with the title 2001: A Space Odyssey. How could one think otherwise? All Kubrick is saying in his comment is that he doesn't want to spell it out for people. In fact, it's just a sly way of saying "if you can't figure out the obvious for yourself don't expect me to do the work for you".

Originally posted by Class A

I think an image title does impose a certain interpretation to some extent and that's why I don't like image titles.

So, how is this different from film titles? Or books? Or paintings? What is wrong with indicating "a certain interpretation"? Even taking the picture and presenting it for public consumption already imposes "a certain interpretation".

04-23-2010, 01:55 PM	#53
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	It really depends on what I'm trying to do with an image. Sometimes an name them, sometimes I use a caption/annotation, sometimes both and sometimes neither. A technical image will be more literal and accurate for example. Here is a recent example from me: () https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-film-slr-discussion/98610-warning-...iflex-etc.html The actual inspiration can come from almost anywhere, time, place, thing or person.

05-12-2010, 05:29 AM	#55
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	I'm not a fan of titles that attempt to do more than provide factual context for the image. I believe that a mediocre image can benefit from a witty title. But then you are succeeding as a writer not as a photographer. I believe that a strong image practically almost loses by having an explanatory title. First, a strong image invokes feelings that go beyond words. By using words, one pulls the image down into the verbal realm. Second, a strong image speaks through many channels and you cannot support them all with just one title. By choosing one you are narrowing down how the image may speak to the viewer. () Regarding narrowing down what something means: Kubrick never revealed what "2001 -- A Space Odyssey" meant to him. He wanted people to have their own interpretation and not impose the creator's interpretation on them. Last edited by Class A; 05-12-2010 at 02:59 PM. Reason: Tried to make the role of the "2001" example clearer.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Using song titles and lyrics - what can I do?	Tommy	General Talk	7	11-20-2009 12:57 PM
News Changes to Forum Titles and Descriptions	Damn Brit	Site Suggestions and Help	3	07-02-2009 01:05 AM
Could you please suggest some good titles for these Images?	skamaraju	Post Your Photos!	6	08-13-2008 09:16 AM

04-22-2010, 04:23 PM	#46
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	This is off topic, but I really like that "Vanity" shot, JCT. Nice tonalities going on there. I do wish the vase was not in front off the mirror though -- it would have been great to see the full reflection of the light.

04-22-2010, 04:25 PM	#47
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793 Original Poster	Originally posted by rparmar This is off topic, but I really like that "Vanity" shot, JCT. Nice tonalities going on there. I do wish the vase was not in front off the mirror though -- it would have been great to see the full reflection of the light. Thanks! There's a lot I love about that photo and hate about it at the same time. First off, there are two variations that I took of it, one with me in the mirror, and one with me barely in the mirror (it's hard to get that angle without being in the photo myself, believe me) and I liked this one more because it was a little bit sharper. I don't think I can get back there to retry it, but if I ever was then I definitely would give it another shot because I think that has some great potential if I know how to do it right. Oh, and that was taken with the Canon 18-55mm IS lens actually.

04-22-2010, 07:27 PM	#48
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by jct us101 it's hard to get that angle without being in the photo myself, believe me Yeah, that's what you need a shift lens for. Pay thousands of dollars to get yourself out of mirrors!

04-22-2010, 08:13 PM	#49
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,481	Quote: I dont title my photos. a good photo speaks for itself... Bad ones, too. I have exactly 1 image that I have given a title, but only if it goes in a gallery - not likely. I may give a title to one as a mnemonic device while editing, but it goes in the exif database as "100417-0123Church".

04-22-2010, 08:17 PM	#50
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,481	Quote: Whenever possible one should always title one's photo. It's the first direction one gives the viewer. Whether it's a one word caption or something more verbose. Heck, as the photo's creator, one took the time to capture the moment, select the subject and frame it in a certain fashion. Why not provide the first signage to the viewer of what one captured. Couldn't it be left for the viewer to see and interpret in their own way?

04-23-2010, 02:33 AM	#51
Pentaxie Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Kuala Lumpur Malaysia Photos: Gallery Posts: 429	Originally posted by Jools Whenever possible one should always title one's photo. It's the first direction one gives the viewer. Whether it's a one word caption or something more verbose. Heck, as the photo's creator, one took the time to capture the moment, select the subject and frame it in a certain fashion. Why not provide the first signage to the viewer of what one captured. Yes, if the sole purpose is to let viewers see the picture in the first place. I remember hard prints from film negatives of yesteryears, there were no title given. Yet we enjoyed the pictures altogether.

04-23-2010, 03:27 AM	#52
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by SpecialK Couldn't it be left for the viewer to see and interpret in their own way? Following this line of inquiry, shouldn't it be left for the viewer to see and interpret a view in their own way? And yet the photographer takes a photo nonetheless, to present their vision, their interpretation. Photography is an aesthetic act that involves decisions about form, line, colour, framing, perspective, dimensionality etc. etc. I see no necessary reason why it should not also involve language. Not saying it has to, mind you. I'm simply saying that there is nothing in photography that I can see that should necessarily exclude titling a photo.

05-12-2010, 04:27 AM	#54
fractal Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,547	Originally posted by rparmar I'm simply saying that there is nothing in photography that I can see that should necessarily exclude titling a photo I agree. And i'm not talking about a factual title. Facts can be saved for the description or album title. I've only realised over the last few days how much a title can complement an image. I guess it's that last thing a photographer puts towards an image. I believe it can give us a glimpse into the mind of the eye that shot it. In saying that, I can understand how some people do not want to/care to elaborate on that. Some of the images I have produced confuse the odd person so I feel the need to develop titling my images to confuse them even futher. I've labeled this image as I see it. Chameleon

05-12-2010, 06:49 AM	#56
fractal Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,547	Originally posted by Class A Kubrick never revealed what "2001 -- A Space Odyssey" meant to him. He wanted people to have their own interpretation and not impose the creator's interpretation on them. I think you are going into different territory with films, & even music for that matter. I can't for the life of me remember seeing a film or listening to a song that wasn't called something.

05-12-2010, 11:14 AM	#57
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by Class A Kubrick never revealed what "2001 -- A Space Odyssey" meant to him. He wanted people to have their own interpretation and not impose the creator's interpretation on them. Yeah but that's a different matter. The film did in fact have a title, and even one many in this thread might critique as being pretentious. So it's an argument for having titles, not against.

05-12-2010, 02:55 PM	#58
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by fractal I can't for the life of me remember seeing a film or listening to a song that wasn't called something. Originally posted by rparmar The film did in fact have a title, and even one many in this thread might critique as being pretentious. Sorry for not having expressed myself clearly. I just mentioned the "2001" example to illustrate my point that the creator should not try to impose interpretations on the beholder. This has nothing to do with films having titles or not. I think an image title does impose a certain interpretation to some extent and that's why I don't like image titles.

05-12-2010, 05:07 PM	#59
MJB DIGITAL Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: st. louis Posts: 1,170	my photos are titled as such: bride getting ready 1, 2, 3, 4 etc groom getting ready1, 2, 3, 4 etc preceremony1, 2, 3, 4 etc ceremony1, 2, 3, 4 etc formals1, 2, 3, 4 etc park1, 2, 3, 4 etc 1, 2, 3, 4 etc

05-13-2010, 06:12 AM	#60
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by Class A I just mentioned the "2001" example to illustrate my point that the creator should not try to impose interpretations on the beholder. This has nothing to do with films having titles or not. But the creator is trying to say something with the title 2001: A Space Odyssey. How could one think otherwise? All Kubrick is saying in his comment is that he doesn't want to spell it out for people. In fact, it's just a sly way of saying "if you can't figure out the obvious for yourself don't expect me to do the work for you". Originally posted by Class A I think an image title does impose a certain interpretation to some extent and that's why I don't like image titles. So, how is this different from film titles? Or books? Or paintings? What is wrong with indicating "a certain interpretation"? Even taking the picture and presenting it for public consumption already imposes "a certain interpretation".