Heh, heh. I usually work hard on titles because I do think they're important. For my Best of 2007 entry, I put a basic descriptive title on it while I was preparing the details, technicals, etc., and then forgot to change it. I hate my title!
It took a lot of will-power to not name my Yellow challenge entry with the text "yellow" in it. After I got over my mental block for appropriate captions, I then had a dilemna of choosing one of two non-yellow captions. I switched between the two until the very last moment. The two were:
I think the title is a very important part of the overall work. It has the power, as previously mentioned, to enhance a shot or likewise make it look stupid. For an example, and forgive me for going outside our medium here, if the 1812 Overture was instead titled Psychedelic Love Sheep, more people would listen to classical music.
I love these "title" threads -
There have been a lot of them posted.
The serious flaw in the submission process is that by default a title tag is required to complete an entry.
I have always supported elimination of this default. This annoying flaw supports cliche, last minute efforts, shoe horn names, and encourages stereotype. I am of the opinion that it can degrade visual presentation. There may be a way to eliminate the requirement, but as yet no one in authority, nor any influential counsel has been able to support or consider that notion despite numerous complaints.
I not opposed to the option to include photographer's titles/notes in a challenge submission, & I would actually encourage a title, however I find "required title" not necessary as a component for a proper presentation of a photograph.
Titles are an important part of presentation, I've always agreed with that.
Lately, I've found that if a title for an image doesn't immediately come to mind, it's probably because my picture is boring and soulless. So I usually try not to enter those. Sometimes I do it anyway, and I'm always disappointed in the score before I kick myself for submitting a shot that yawned instead of making an artistic statement. YMMV.
I like a title because it can give some insight into the photographer's intent. We can't view the notes until after the challenge, and sometimes that can change my whole outlook on a photograph.
For instance, my entry here:
I thought the title helped explain my intent with the photo.
I guess I'm one of the few who actually enjoy coming up with titles.
I guess I'm one of the few who actually enjoy coming up with titles.
No, no! I enjoy a well thought of title, and spend some time on that in my entries. There is no question in my mind that a title is an enhancement, if it is properly applied, and appropriately brief. It should stimulate a reaction to the image, if it is to be part of the image.
The serious flaw in the submission process is that by default a title tag is required to complete an entry.
Terrible photo. but i think i just used spacebar.
I dont put up many photos here, but the ones i have are mainly named in exactly the way the OP hates. I never really try to be creative about them unless the photo is really asking for it; i just dont see the point, and i want the photos to speak for themselves.
The serious flaw in the submission process is that by default a title tag is required to complete an entry.
Terrible photo. but i think i just used space bar.
I dont put up many photos here, but the ones i have are mainly named in exactly the way the OP hates. I never really try to be creative about them unless the photo is really asking for it; i just dont see the point, and i want the photos to speak for themselves.
Good point. Yes the title default can be defeated. Goofy peer pressure on this site makes it unpopular, and site admins usually won't recommend it. However, I would maintain, title is a user preference and that a required manipulation should be unnecessary, the photo - w/required date, agreement etc. clicked, should be enough for submission.
I like coming up with the title - it's like putting the finishing touch on your creation. Sometimes, if a title is not jumping out at me, I will put the subject and "poem" in the google search engine.
For example, for the Wings challenge I entered this .
In search of the title I put "aviation poem" in the search engine and browsed through a few poems coming up with a phrase that seemed to me to fit the photo: "... high in the sunlit silence...".
Regardless if you like that title, it's one way of doing it.
Hey, Mo! Thanks for the example! I just may have to do that in the future. I feel pretty strongly that for my photos, I shouldn't need a title to communicate what was going on. For other people's photos - I rarely get annoyed by the title at all, I just hate coming up with one myself.
Though the smiley thing seems weird to me. And the really long ones sometimes seem like they're trying to include their 'description' in the title.
Actually, there are photos where the title truly does have a value added factor... like this one
Ray
I actually think the title cheapens the photo. It's a very nice capture that I like less now that I saw the title. Sorry.
On topic, I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with uncreative titles. Weston's "Pepper No. 30" anyone? It makes the viewer focus on the picture. I really think if you've taken a picture that needs to be explained with a title, you haven't done a great job creating a story in that picture.
I actually think the title cheapens the photo. It's a very nice capture that I like less now that I saw the title. Sorry.
We should do a no-title challenge.
I guess it's a matter of sensibility, but I agree with you on both counts, JB.
Having said that, my own pet hate (worth a couple of minus hacks on the voting scale) is qualitative titles like "A Beautiful Boy" under a picture of, yes, a boy. The boy's in the picture. I can see the picture. I can see the boy in the picture. STOP TELLING ME HOW I FEEL. (Sorry about that). You get my drift . . .
Sometimes a title is just sort of needed to round off the submission. For example, in "Environmental Portrait" I think the title was pretty necessary, because the guy isn't involved in an obvious trade, and it's hard to view his environment out of context:
