Titles

[Karin Leibbrandt]

Something I have learned: A photograph with a well thought out title, means far more than one that says: "Grass". or "Flower".

Rather say: Flower vrekking in the drought after being over watered.

Everyone can see it is a flower, or a door, or a bok.

Be more descriptive, such as the pro-s.


Maybe Simon you can write something here?

[Leo Theron]

The Title of an images is simple - "Dead waterplant." The Caption says more: "The only oblata hydronia (Fat Waterplant) in Diepvlei expired earlier this week in its flooded habitat after the incessant rain in the Peninsula over the past two months"

[SimonDP]

Titles should be simple, catchy, descriptive of the photo or its environment/situation, it shouldn't be an essay.

[squirrel]

I agree, Karin.

To take it a bit further - if I can't think of any other title to give an image than "elephant" of "Flower", I tend to look twice at the photo, and more often than not it turns out to be rather boring, even if it is technically good. It helps to keep me focused on not just taking photos that say "oh look, there's a zebra, just standing there..."

I also tend to use the title of the image to nudge the viewer in the direction of what I really want to show, or the story I intended to tell with it.

[elsahoffmann]

And here I thought a picture says a thousand words.

[jaytee]

True. But a few good words could help it say more

[Henk Coetzee]

I'm making a point of adding comments/crits to images which catch my eye in the galleries. Try and do at least 2 or 3 a day. There are a number of images which have made an impact on me and which I still can visualise in my mind. TBH, I can't think of the titles of a single one.

If the objective of the photograph is to accurately document the world (Group f/64 type stuff), the descriptive titles make sense. If it is more to express your interpretation of what's in front of your lens, maybe a single word or something describing what you feel rather than what you see could work.

[Karin Leibbrandt]

@Wilma: Yes, that is exactly what I mean. It helps to place the image in perspective.

@ Elsa: Yes a picture says a thousand words: Just please tell which words to "listen" for?

@ Henk: I agree - I also remember images that have made a strong impact - however not all good images immediately make a strong impact without the correct title.

[Roberto]

For myself photographs get my attention only if they are linked via a title.

Karin, which would you rather open "Flower" or "Flower Vrekking in the drought after being over watered"? Whether you name it Flower or Flower Vrekking, with a thumbnail you can still see that it's a Vrekking Flower

[SteveG]

A good photograph is expressive all by itself. A good title complements this and leads the viewer in the general direction the artist intends.

It's part of the communication between artist and audience.

[Karin Leibbrandt]

Roberto, where thumbnails are available - well, quite frankly, I can SEE I am looking at a flower. Just calling it "flower" to me evokes the very sarcastic response of "no ****. is that a flower?"

[Roberto]

A good photograph is expressive all by itself.

Which also excludes a border in my opinion as it can sometimes make a good photo look better.

[Karin Leibbrandt]

Which also excludes a border in my opinion as it can sometimes make a good photo look better.

I have also seen some of my stuff being vastly improved by borders. I don't often use it, but must say, it DOES look nicer.