Whats your thoughts about photographs that is given an obvious title, for exampel, an image of a cute kid with the title "cute" or a sunset with the title "sunset". Do you think that the title can ruin the photograph or vice verse, ruin a photograph that has no title. For me sometimes I feel that a title can control how to feel about an image. Just curious in your thoughts on this topic.

Have a nice day :)

Hi Anna!
I personally like to add a title to my images...
but thats my way of doing that.im a musician
and find influence in jazz in my picture taking-
and i feel its..right,, for mee to lead on with
a (creative) title
so....i like titles!

My rule of thumb - If a title comes to you before the shot or quickly while you are processing the image then I title the image.
I do feel it lends some of the viewers down a narrow path but most people take the time will see different interpretations in the work. Well, that's my two cents. Have a great day too, Anna.

@ Angela: Well it's the same for me, I don't struggle in finding a suitable title :)

Hi,it is difficult for me to put my thoughts in a second language,but I will try my best,because I likes titles,the good ones,and do not hate the bad ones.
Definitely for landscapes,flowers,portraits..etc.the titles has nothing to do with photos, it is neither adds nor subtracts,but for some or most conceptual photos,the good titles adds,ranging between a lot ,to varying degrees of less.sometimes,a dead photo that tells you little,or nothing,with a fine poetry title ,your mind ill mix the title with shot,blend it and it become part of it,and act as an enhancer.in other instances where you took a very good and popping shot,and title it badly,the shot in itself is good and the viewer will not be affected by the bad title,because there is a good subject to look at and enjoy.
in short,it direct the viewer for your subject if you have one,thus a sharing state between the viewer and the photographer is established,and if the photographer has no subject or concept to direct the viewer ,then the title will be a matter similar to adding a frame to the shot.

Titling can be really tricky.

I believe best titles are ones that come naturally, you do not think about them they just come to mind. Other forced titles can ruin a photograph, and if we are talking about screening then you should really be very careful. I had a lot of my photographs being judged by the title rather than the image itself. It is unavoidable especially when having to deal with so many people.

Some titles are really clever and can make you look at the photo in a completely different way, the complete the story, or provide a controversial and ironic view to it.

I mean take a look at Robert's Mr. Lee photo : http://1x.com/v2/#photos/member/3875/29805/ ,the title adds humour to an image.

Or look at this one also by Robert, that does not really need a title, but if given can help make the story even stronger: http://1x.com/v2/#/photos/member/3875/30912/

Other images do not need a title, they are so strong visually by their own, that a title will most probably take away rather than add...ex:
http://1x.com/v2/#photos/member/7208/31720/

Take a look at one of mine:


I titled this "thinking of you".....I guess looking back at it and after some feedback, the title is somewhat cheesy and does influence the viewer in a bad away I guess....one of the title that were suggested was "Someday I'll make it" or "someday I'll get published"...those 2 alternative titles could have helped the image, one is more Humoristic and the other more moody.....

So titles are important, but not always. They can add, make or take from a photo imo.

I think that a picture title is important for so many. According to that we all being very subjective the title will draw us or guide us wrong or right as we will have mostly a different impression and thoughts of a picture. I am agree that a title can ruin the whole shot. But how to find the right title? I decide when i see my pictures the first time after i take it and write the title down.

Have a nice day!

Robert

I agree with title in image, create an mood, direction and share everyone what's on your mind

But never give name your picture 'Waiting In Vain'... last day i've been rejected for 1 weeks screening ... the title works! :D :D LOLZ....

I'm basically against giving personal titles. Only 7 pictures in history of my photographic life have personal titles! The other titles are most of the time a part of a verse or something like that where the inspiration of the image came from. It can always be changed, removed etc. . I think for humor photos the title can be useful. For example look at the most popular image of 1X "The Kung Fu Master, I'm sure it wouldn't be so popular without that funny title. If you want to show something explicit in an image, which is not easy to see for the viewer, a title can help again....

For me it is a problem.
Of course, a title can lead in, explain, strengthen an impact.
But I have to admit, that my first thought often is: shouldn`t it be clear out of the image? Does'nt the photographer trust in the strenght of his/her image? Sometimes i feel actually disurbed or distracted by titles or explainations.
The probelm in my eyes may be, that we all cannot control what impact and feelings are generated in our viewers. i am shure each of us has slightly differnet emotions while watching the same image. And this nuances, fine vibrations are often destroied by titles or long explainations, that -for me- from time to time feel like sledgehammered.

I agree with Kaveh, that it can be useful in a funny photograph. What I don't appreciate is when the title explains everything in the photo leaving nothing left to my imagination.

i am absolute agree to this!!!:-)

I try to give my photos a clever, usually two-word title.

Sometimes I find myself using plain and vague title's and I wonder if that does make a difference sometimes. They idea's come quickly but the title adds little interest in that case.

I love dreaming up and giving mine titles, I have on an odd occasion taken a particular photograph to match a title that I have had in my mind for a while. I have also refrained from showing an image publically if I hadn't thought of a suitable title at the time, if nothing else they are a cataloguing and reference tag I feel.

I think this is in line with my style of descriptive photography, I feel my records of scenes are not complete without a title.

JP

I don't title mine with anything more than a number. My thinking is if my image is strong then the viewer will connect without being directed by a title. If the viewer isn't drawn to art then I as an artist haven't been effective, at least as far as that viewer is concerned.

Sometime when I am out in the nature the title comes to me while shooting. So when I come home the title is already there.

My abstracts I try to give a title that is not leading the spectator to much. Abstract is so much about what the person sees in it so the title should not be to leading. Not easy to achieve at all times but I try :)

The strange thing is that i in 98% I give my photos English titles. Feels very natural even if I am not very good at that language.

for me it 'ruins' the photograph and is also saying something about the photographer, nevertheless if I regard the photo as great the tile is irrelevant and I try to give it my own interpretation... :) ...I have to admit that I see 1X somewhat 'intellectually' inferior in comparison to some other photo and image sites such as deviantART, Flickr, etc., where I've got a feeling that some people have 'fuller' and 'deeper' expressions...

The central question in this discussion is, if a picture HAS to stand for itself or not.
In my opinion, it is not essential in every case.

@ Robert
If you look at photos on deviantART, most of the conceptional pictures are not understandable without a title.

Frank

I am almost certain that the following 'photo' of mine would be regarded as nowhere near 'good' at 1X, nevertheless, it has for me a 'special' meaning, I wonder Frank what did you get from the title... :)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/robert-jurjevic/4354466507/

OK. Without title, I would not take a deeper look.
With the title, I can imagine, that there is a special meaning.
What I see (naturally I can only guess) is a tree branch in front of a blue sky and above there is a green meadow.
I suppose, you applied a photoshop Filter and converted the picure to black and white.

Am I right?

All the best

Frank

Frank, yes, you are in principle right (upside-down tree, there is not a meadow, green is to complement blue 'mentally', yes Photoshop filters and some non- free-hand image transformation), the image is more the expression of my frustration in not being able to improve and completely understand a chess engine (of course Deep Blue refers to the chess computer and tree branches to the chess game graph, not exactly tree, as in chess there is a transposition)... all the best...

I dream about taking a shot that I can title "Post-modern empiriocritisizm in neo-Marxist philosophy".

Balazs, you are so wonderfully cynical.

The title is more important than the image. When you become famous nobody will say: Oh yeah, I remember the guy from his image where a girl and another girl were....'. No, they will say: His series ' Royal Kisses' was great. It's even harder to make titles than images.

I agree totally! And I would say more... it is alot easier to make an abstract when you don't have to put a title then if you Must title it ;-)
To me, as i stated in another topic a while ago... an abstract image without a title is a picture that tells me "ok... i caught this and looks cool,means nothing to me,but maybe it will say something to someone"
Oh well... with very rare exceptions the news is... it says nothing to me either! :-)

Never thought abot that, you may have a point there. Maby it's also important that you have series of good images rather then singles? And then you just have to name the series and just number the images in it?

I haven't read all the posts, but to answer your original question, I think the title is not really important, but having said that I prefer images with titles. Sometimes a title can be helpful to give a picture a new meaning that the viewer didn't think of right away and let the viewer quickly understand the intent of the picture. A very simple descriptive title like "a cat" is sometimes used by artists, in order to not disturb the image and let the viewer make his/her own interpretation. Yes, a bad title can ruin an image (usually a silly title), but in such cases I just try to ignore it.

...and then there is Duane Michals, who writes upon the images (i.e., prints) themselves, to great effect.

When I first started posting images online, I held with those who think that titles are superfluous.
However, now I get great pleasure when I can come up with the perfect title. In the future, I may create some images for which the title already exists.
Titles, like poetry, can convey a wealth and depth of meaning and emotion in few words (e.g., "Jesus wept").
Titles have sometimes enhanced my enjoyment of images.
Images with no description whatsoever, sometimes leave the viewer wanting to know more.
However, I think titles are optional.

It's nice to see the tuned story (both photo and the title), but I think it depends on the type of the photo and message you want to send. Speaking of titles - is there a way to give your unnamed photo a title once it has been published?

I think this is one of the reasons that makes 1x arguably the best photography website in the world, is the quality of the forums. Its nice to see so many people from different cultures getting on so well. Seeing work from people all around the world to me is a great privalige. . Having said that there are some really interesting comments here about titles. I must admit I too find it quite difficult sometimes to find a title. The other problem for me is, when you give an image a title other viewers might not see that the title goes or compliments the image which in turn might make them less interested in the image. I'm sorry this is a little off topic but I've wanted to say this for a while.

Well I've come up with a new system for naming my 1x photos for this year ;) It takes the pain out of thinking up a name.

And what about titling a serie as opposed to individual images ?

I think this is very different (and of course somewhat pointless for 1X purpose but I believe the topic is more general). If you are looking for a consistent bunch of work, in which individual photos serves a broader purpose I think titling individual photo can be counter productive (or you have to find out title related to the serie, which might be completely different than a title for the specific pic). Depends on the kind of work of course. A serie of portraits can have each individual pic titles after the name of people photographed which can be relevant for stand-alone pic as well.

Hello Anna,

You've started a wonderful thread because the issue of titles is sensitive and should be explored. I've learned a lot from the replies here.

My personal view is that just the exercise of finding a title can be fun and rewarding. When done correctly, with a relaxed and receptive mind, it can help us understand aspects of our images that we perhaps didn't understand. The exercise must be done carefully though and never taken lightly. Just as with all creative efforts we must not try to rush or force a result. Sometimes I might stop the process and wait for days before beginning again with a fresh mind. The power of the title must match the power of the image or you may do more damage than good. No title is better than a bad title.

To title is to tell the viewer in just a few carefully chosen words what your intentions are. A distinctive image is yours and and yours alone. It's message is the heart and soul of your visual talent. It deserves to be by showcased by a fitting tille.

By the way, if you having trouble finding that perfect title ask others to help. You will be amazed at what they will come up with. And, again, you will learn more about your work.

Now on to framing..... LOL

Phil

"Photographs and words should complement each other. Not contradict each other and not say the same thing"

I think the title makes the photo

I think giving the picture a title is itself part of the creative process. One can never make a silk purse out of a sows ear i.e. the picture itself must still have merit, but the title, if properly chosen, just rounds it out.

A simple statement, but my reaction is that if it takes a title to "make" the photo, then it's not much of a photo to begin with. I don't mean to be smart ass about this, just my opinion. I have titled some of my photo's but I certainly don't rely on the name to convey the photo to made status.

Hey, Hillbilly. I think Karl was pulling our leg. I laughed, anyway.

Clyde, in my opinion the title makes the photo.

Well, Karl, in my opinion you're wrong!!

For example, this photo work even though it has a title that nobody can pronounce. Ha!! So much for the title making the photo!!

Maybe this story will help you understand why I think my opinion is a valid one.
The Power of the Story Behind The Pictures

Without the story, just a random collection of wedding photos. With the background, you understand more of the meaning behind the photos that can't be explained on their own. I appreciate the photos a lot more than if I had had no back story. I feel, in some cases, titles can equally help communicate that meaningfulness beyond simple aesthetic.

A title offers a bit more of a backstory than no title, so you may appreciate it more.

but really who cares, it's all just semantics.

Sure it is a image that stands for it self... as long as you are looking for it... you turn your back and it is forgotten and replaced by another similar one.
If one image doesn't have a Title that makes it stand out and make it really meaningfull... well... it will be a great photo full of impact... but just another one for the pile along with almost every photo that comes out in each National Geographic publication... think about it ;-)

Apparently not. However, a laugh can be a good thing...even a mistaken laugh.

I don't think a title "makes" a photograph. But a good combination of title an picture can make 1+1 sum up to something bigger than 2.
But a fancy title without a good quality image is just a hollow vessel. In most cases a title makes an image more 'portable' and to refer to it in talking or writing about it...

I am not a neurologist but I wouldn't be surprised if image and title stimulate or trigger different parts in the brain. And that a well chosen combination might give a different response from the viewer than just the image or just the title...

Maybe we could as a MRI scanner to our minitors during the screening process ... :-)

cheers

Well, the 'rule' must be, if the photo is better or more interresting than any of the titles you can come up for for it - keep it untitled.