I tried to judge this week's challenge without looking at the titles and it was really really hard! I guess I didn't realize how dependent on them. I still can't decide if it's better to judge them without depending on the title AT ALL...some of the photos are really clever once the title clues you in. But then again if you need the title, does the photo actually tell the story?
I think it's best to first, look at the picture and give it a score...say a 4
Then, read the title...And look at the picture again. If the picture makes a lot more sense and meets the challenge i might give it an 8..Take the average and give it a 6.
For me, this works most of the time, sometimes,there are pictures that are so great in terms of meeting the challenge in a non-blatant way that the title is just the slap in the face as to the reason for the photo. I usually give it a higher score....Your mileage might vary...
Originally posted by muckpond: ... But then again if you need the title, does the photo actually tell the story? ...
Of course it does - but that won't stop people from taking the picture out of context(ie, ignoring you when you say "please look at this based on my title") and voting that way (BTW, for the corporate challenge, if i averaged in another 2 points for every comment that included the words EXCEPT FOR THE TITLE, i'd have done pretty well :)
Man, I've never seen longer titles then in the 'corporate life' chalenge. Talk about trying to explain a photo! Clever titles are nice but they shouldn't be long paragraphs that try to save the photo.
I don't feel that there are a lot of photos this week which try to explain the photo with the title. Last week was terrible with on that matter. But this week the challenge is easier. Most titles support the photo nicely, just telling me some details about the photo. But the overall mood and relation to the topic I can see in the photos itself.
And that's how I like it. A title which explains a little more is ok. As long as the photo works without the title. If not I'll score at least one point lower.
I like using titles to confuse people even more! :-)
Actually, titles are really a fun element of the photo process.
Don't know about the rest of you but for me sometimes a title comes along with the idea for the shot and sometimes its like naming a kid....you have ideas but when the baby is born..looking up at you she just doesn't look like an Elmo ;-)
Originally posted by hokie: I like using titles to confuse people even more! :-)
Actually, titles are really a fun element of the photo process.
Don't know about the rest of you but for me sometimes a title comes along with the idea for the shot and sometimes its like naming a kid....you have ideas but when the baby is born..looking up at you she just doesn't look like an Elmo ;-)
If she doesn't look like an "Elmo", you should name her: "We were going to name her Elmo, but since she turned out to be a girl, we thought that 'Elvira' would be much more appropriate and the grandparents agree."
I've always believe that the title and photograph go together. I think if we were intended to disregard the title when voting, Drew/Langdon would have hidden the title along with the rest of the details (description, camera settings, etc) during voting.
I don't think a title should be allowed to save a blatantly off-topic photo, but it can give context that reveals the photos connection to the topic. That is, the title can highlight the connection but shouldn't make it.
i think we should do a test sometime... let's have a challenge with NO titles and see how it goes... if everyone hates that concept, let's remove the rule that states that a title should not save a photo so that the photographers can legally attempt to explain their work if they want to...
I agree with jmsetzler. I think a "No Titles" challenge would be a cool experiment.
I personally like to title my photos. Sometimes they might be "cute" but more often than not they're a smartass take on the photo's subject. I think that's a reflection of the photographer. 8)
Originally posted by muckpond: I agree with jmsetzler. I think a "No Titles" challenge would be a cool experiment.
I personally like to title my photos. Sometimes they might be "cute" but more often than not they're a smartass take on the photo's subject. I think that's a reflection of the photographer. 8)
--rob
I like to title my photos also but i think we are allowing too much leeway in the current title system. I think that part of the challenge concept is to produce a photo that meets the challenge without outside help...
I was giggling all week as I imagined the possible 7-10 word titles for shots I took. Short and sweet ( and if you hit clever also, then bonus to you!) is my motto.
Originally posted by kathleenm: Maybe limiting the characters allowed in a title?
I was giggling all week as I imagined the possible 7-10 word titles for shots I took. Short and sweet ( and if you hit clever also, then bonus to you!) is my motto.
Originally posted by kathleenm: Maybe limiting the characters allowed in a title?
I was giggling all week as I imagined the possible 7-10 word titles for shots I took. Short and sweet ( and if you hit clever also, then bonus to you!) is my motto.
That's not a bad idea either... My favorite works of art are all short titles...
Well, sometimes I can see what some people are trying to do. It seems they may be frustrated that other folks don't see their vision and they are trying to help 'em along a little with a clue. :-)
Me...I just wished other folks loved my photos as much as me and stared at them long enough to get all the nuances. My latest photo has so much thought put into it but from the comments and score its being dismissed very quickly.
There is just nothing I can do about that. And I don't think a descriptive title would help...Like " I know you think the one thing is the subject and is older than the other but age is relevent to the object as well as time itself and often times a photo has supporting subjects in various levels of DOF to move your eye around the photo to link the photo together if you take more than 20 seconds to look at me".
Originally posted by jmsetzler: ...let's remove the rule that states that a title should not save a photo so that the photographers can legally attempt to explain their work if they want to...
I made this comment before in another thread -- I can't find this rule on the rules page. I don't know if it's folklore, or if it was a rule and isn't anymore, or if I'm just looking in the wrong place I guess it's still up to you whether or not you let a title influence you, but it isn't a rule one way or another.
Don't you all think that eventually....enough people will learn (by repetitive comments over long titles) that they will shorten their titles? Until then...what good does it really do to hash this out in forums over and over?
Personally...I believe that changing your title (shortening it) to suit the rest of the voters is about the same as trying to please them with the photo you shoot. I shoot what I like and if others like it...great. If they don't...that's great too. You can't please everyone...but who is to say you should restrict someone's need to give their photo life by giving it a title? I go with Hokie...it is somewhat like naming your child. It's your creation.
If you don't like it because it's got a long name...vote it down. If the photo is so extraordinary that you can view it without even seeing how long the title is...then you will vote it accordingly. (One would hope)
In addition to the "Untitled" challenge being proposed (again), maybe we could have a "side challenge" where everyone's given the same image to start with and has to come up with their own title. If the original is large enough, maybe we could all come up with our own cropping and adjustments too...sort of an editing/printing challenge.
Personally, I think an editing/cropping/titling challenge would be a riot -- it doesn't even have to be the main challenge, just a side-shoot game kind of a thing.... Something to do during the middle of the week before you have an idea and as the addiction to checking your score is getting old...
Originally posted by KDJohnson: Don't you all think that eventually....enough people will learn (by repetitive comments over long titles) that they will shorten their titles? Until then...what good does it really do to hash this out in forums over and over?
Personally...I believe that changing your title (shortening it) to suit the rest of the voters is about the same as trying to please them with the photo you shoot. I shoot what I like and if others like it...great. If they don't...that's great too. You can't please everyone...but who is to say you should restrict someone's need to give their photo life by giving it a title? I go with Hokie...it is somewhat like naming your child. It's your creation.
If you don't like it because it's got a long name...vote it down. If the photo is so extraordinary that you can view it without even seeing how long the title is...then you will vote it accordingly. (One would hope)
Just my buck fifty.
Karen
The length of the name is not really the issue....
You keep saying that you don't like titles that tell you what you're looking at (you commented on one of my photos that way)... I really don't understand because the vast majority of titles in the history of art have been like that, from Da Vinci's "The Last Supper" to Salvador Dali's "Young Virgin Auto-Sodomized by Her Own Chastity" (really, it only describes what's in the painting :P). Most of the artworks I really love have plain, descriptive titles. Eg. I've loved Chagall's paintings since I was a kid and the Guggenheim permanent collection went on a world tour, so I got to see them in Australia. I just recently went to the Guggenheim on my US trip and saw them again, and renewed my interest in him, especially "Paris Through the Window". That title is no more complex than my "Kitchen through Cling Wrap and Glasses", really... so what's wrong with it? What are some examples of the kind you like?
To me, I see a problem when a shot photograph, having nothing to do with the challenge, is "stretched" into the challenge by virtue of its title. I don't have a problem with descriptive titles, as long as there is a vision reflecting the challenge.
No offense intended to "Gina Rothfels", but using her corporate challenge photo as an example, its a picture of an animal skull laying next to a cactus. I'm sorry, I don't see much of a relationship to "corporate world" there, other than the title of "Corporations don't care!", which doesn't really make sense anyway. Decent photo... wrong challenge.
Are photos that contain big buildings, corporate logos or business suits the only acceptable form of corporate connection to the real world?
Corporations like Exxon dump stuff into our environment or leave presents like These for us.
I am under a non-disclosure agreement to over 35 corporations that skirt EPA and OSHA rules every day of the week either covertly or with the governments blessing.
I think a photo like 'Gina Rothels" is a perfect example. I could take some kydney and liver tests from people along the James River and photgraph those and they would definitely be corporate world behaviour connections.
Heck, I had folks tell me they couldn't see the connection in my photo.
I give the benefit of the doubt that I don't know EVERY angle to a challenge topic. I never vote as if there is NO conection but I might vote lower by a point or 2 if I miss it. But even then... On a great image if the image is just too good I can't keep from giving it a 10.
Originally posted by csb: To me, I see a problem when a shot photograph, having nothing to do with the challenge, is "stretched" into the challenge by virtue of its title. I don't have a problem with descriptive titles, as long as there is a vision reflecting the challenge.
No offense intended to "Gina Rothfels", but using her corporate challenge photo as an example, its a picture of an animal skull laying next to a cactus. I'm sorry, I don't see much of a relationship to "corporate world" there, other than the title of "Corporations don't care!", which doesn't really make sense anyway. Decent photo... wrong challenge.
