Often I find that I spend more time trying to think of a good title for my challenge submissions than I do taking the picture. I always worry that I somehow didnt quite convey my intent, that the picture doesnt speak for itself, and so I need to give it a little help with a good title.
For me, when I vote, I very rarely ever read the title. I just look at the picture and let it hit me in the context of the challenge. So you would think that a title for my own pictures wouldnt really concern me. But for some reason it does.
I would love to someday see a scientific study on titles, how many points is a good title worth to a submission? How many points can you lose from a bad one?
I think a title is very important since it ties the image to the challenge. Specially in cases where the image does not make immediate sense. The photographer can 'explain' how it fits in to the challenge.
I think a title is very important since it ties the image to the challenge. Specially in cases where the image does not make immediate sense. The photographer can 'explain' how it fits in to the challenge.
If you need your title to explain how it fits the challenge, then your photo doesn't fit the challenge very well. It's called "shoehorning" and doesn't tend to go over well. One of my "rules" for naming my photos is to very deliberately avoid mentioning the challenge topic at all.
Also, seeing a terrible title in really bad taste applied to a beautiful photo really does kill it for me, and I might dock it a point if I just can't look past it.
I often wonder the same thing about the importance of titles and still figuring it out myself:)
I decided to experiment- one recent challange I decided to try some humor, and well, for those that got it, it went over well, but based on comments from those that didn't get it- I think it hurt my score... fun experiment though.
In retrospect, I suppose I could have more carefully made the humor reference while also making it more palatable for those that wouldn't get it. Something to note for next time I guess.
I look at titles when voting, I don't really vote down for a "bad" title, but they hold my interest when they are clever and relevant. When I look at them depends on how flakey my internet connection is... if pics are slow to load, I read titles since they come up first... if the pic comes up fast I look at it first.
A title is one leg of the presentation. No title is, still, one leg of the presentation. The function and purpose of a good title is to charge the image, either metaphorically or by providing a context that cannot be had from the image itself.
A good title should not be added to contribute a meaning that is missing from an image in the first place, but it can, on occasion, extend a meaning that is latently present. To add a title where none is needed is, obviously, redundant. To add a redundancy to a presentation weakens it.
To label a photograph of a swan "Swan", does nothing but test a viewer's tolerance and patience. It would be better to label it precisely: "Trumpeter Swan" or via its proper zoological name.
A great title, as any great photograph, can create a poetry of perception and experience. It only stands to reason that an aspiring photographer would do well to use all the tools in his shed, including those not built into his camera.
When we choose a poetic capture, we should be aware that the rules of prosody apply, if we want it to succeed. The popular use of embellishing adjectives, descriptions and explanations of any kind do, of course, violate such rules as much as they are painful to bear and tolerate.
If you must take pictures of sunsets, please, do not describe them neither as "awesome" nor as "sunsets", but apply, at least, the same degree of creative imagination that went into the image itself. And,
really, to label any photo you take as "beautiful", "breath-taking" or "stunning", especially, when you think it is, will likely not have the intended effect. Every mother loves her child.
A title is one leg of the presentation. No title is, still, one leg of the presentation. The function and purpose of a good title is to charge the image, either metaphorically or by providing a context that cannot be had from the image itself.
A good title should not be added to contribute a meaning that is missing from an image in the first place, but it can, on occasion, extend a meaning that is latently present. To add a title where none is needed is, obviously, redundant. To add a redundancy to a presentation weakens it.
To label a photograph of a swan "Swan", does nothing but test a viewer's tolerance and patience. It would be better to label it precisely: "Trumpeter Swan" or via its proper zoological name.
A great title, as any great photograph, can create a poetry of perception and experience. It only stands to reason that an aspiring photographer would do well to use all the tools in his shed, including those not built into his camera.
When we choose a poetic capture, we should be aware that the rules of prosody apply, if we want it to succeed. The popular use of embellishing adjectives, descriptions and explanations of any kind do, of course, violate such rules as much as they are painful to bear and tolerate.
If you must take pictures of sunsets, please, do not describe them neither as "awesome" nor as "sunsets", but apply, at least, the same degree of creative imagination that went into the image itself. And,
really, to label any photo you take as "beautiful", "breath-taking" or "stunning", especially, when you think it is, will likely not have the intended effect. Every mother loves her child.
This is probably one of the best answers I have read on the subject and will be printed out and added to my photography bible! Thank you for the response.
Hardly ever look at the titles.
A couple of weeks ago I even made a comment like "reminds me off....." where the thing it reminded me off was in the title. I found that out afterwards when I was browsing the challenge results...
