I am posting this in response to numerous comments regarding an apparent struggle with titles not immediately understood as relating to a respective image. Since this seems to be a recurring issue, I want to suggest that prejudging the relevance and aptness of a title may lead to an unintended result.
Point in case: an arcane title could be apt indeed, when it reflects circumstances which are themselves arcane, in other words special circumstances which cannot be known by all without additional information. Under the rules and with respect for the integrity of the process, the only aedequate and proper means to remedy this, would be to supply the missing piece in the text box below the image, which will only be visible to all after the challenge is over.
Comments on several photos I and others have submitted here indicate that there is, in fact, a fair number of voters who are somewhat quick to make up their minds about facts the do not have. To these, I want to say: stop, change, restart. ;-)
(To avoid the exchange of PM's during the challenge).
I want to suggest that prejudging the relevance and aptness of a title may lead to an unintended result.
Unintended to who? The viewer or the photographer? The photographer has intent, background knowledge, feelings, impressions, emotions all wrapped up in the photo.
The viewer has only the title and the picture, and yet is asked to make a informed choice on that picture.
My only response is that if you choose an arcane title, you may face an arcane response.
I want to suggest that prejudging the relevance and aptness of a title may lead to an unintended result.
Unintended to who? The viewer or the photographer? The photographer has intent, background knowledge, feelings, impressions, emotions all wrapped up in the photo.
The viewer has only the title and the picture, and yet is asked to make a informed choice on that picture.
My only response is that if you choose an arcane title, you may face an arcane response.
Unintended by whom? would be my phrasing. Response: the viewer.
The photographer has intent, background knowledge, feelings, impressions, emotions all wrapped up in the photo. I acknowledge this. The viewer would do well, if he did the same.
The viewer has only the title and the picture, and yet is asked to make a informed choice on that picture. He can make an informed choice only from the facts before him. An informed choice cannot be made of facts which are not there.
My only response is that if you choose an [i]arcane title, you may face an arcane response.[/i]It is because of comments like yours that I posted this.
what if the title is straightforward and people choose a different piece of the title and assume it is the subject?
Assumptions tend to arise when people are there. It's the way of things. But if one or two of 'em revisit their ways and amend an error, we've made a teeny advance, and, hey, I'm in heaven. ;-)
He can make an informed choice only from the facts before him. An informed choice cannot be made of facts which are not there.
And my point was either give them the facts needed in the title, choose another title, or suffer with the viewer not understanding the relevence. For example, if someone were to craft a poem entitled 'red wheelbarrow' that had contained no mention, no description, not even a hint or allegory to said wheelbarrow, might a reviewer be justified in saying that they don't understand the title?
Being arcane just to be arcane, then complaining when people don't get it is just foolish in my opinion.
I really have tried to vote and comment on the merits of the image rather than the cleverness of the title but sometimes it's a bit difficult. I have given more high "marks" than ever before...
He can make an informed choice only from the facts before him. An informed choice cannot be made of facts which are not there.
And my point was either give them the facts needed in the title, choose another title, or suffer with the viewer not understanding the relevence. For example, if someone were to craft a poem entitled 'red wheelbarrow' that had contained no mention, no description, not even a hint or allegory to said wheelbarrow, might a reviewer be justified in saying that they don't understand the title?
Being arcane just to be arcane, then complaining when people don't get it is just foolish in my opinion.
When you return to my original post, mbardeen, you'll see that I described a particular circumstance, not a general premise. Being arcane just to be arcane would indeed be as foolish as you say.
I really have tried to vote and comment on the merits of the image rather than the cleverness of the title but sometimes it's a bit difficult. I have given more high "marks" than ever before...
If in doubt, generousity, IMO, is good policy, but I also feel, it needn't be evolve into charity. I, for one, do question many elements of a submission, including the title.
this is the age-old 'if people only got what i was trying to say/do, it would rock their universe' rant. All of us have this issue at some point in our creative 'careets'. But it's founded on an erroneous premise: even if they 'got it', they STILL might not 'love it'. you might not have done it as well as you thought you did. OR you might be grooving on something no one else cares about.
Either way, you have 2 choices:
1) help your audience by being more accessable , or
this is the age-old 'if people only got what i was trying to say/do, it would rock their universe' rant. All of us have this issue at some point in our creative 'careets'. But it's founded on an erroneous premise: even if they 'got it', they STILL might not 'love it'. you might not have done it as well as you thought you did. OR you might be grooving on something no one else cares about.
Either way, you have 2 choices:
1) help your audience by being more accessable , or
2) stick to your guns and take your lumps.
forewarned is fore-armed ;) ..
this is the age-old 'if people only got what i was trying to say/do, it would rock their universe' rant
No, it is not. It is, instead, a caution motivated by a desire to add a modest degree of clarity to a process, precisely to avoid the kind of scenario you paint.
No, it is not. It is, instead, a caution motivated by a desire to add a modest degree of clarity to a process, precisely to avoid the kind of scenario you paint.
So people aren't marking your picture down and leaving harsh comments because of the title you selected ?
You cannot force your own standards on other people. You either have to agree to disagree, hope that someone will like your stuff, or play by the unwritten DPC rules that are fairly easy to interpret if you wish to win.
If you enter submissions aimed at those who 'think' and who want to see hidden meanings or interpretation then great, just dont be mopey if the masses reject you. Even the people who 'think' can follow the 'woo pretty' mentality.
In order to win you have to get more people liking your photograph than anyone else's photograph. That normally means not catering to the niche market. I dont agree with it, it's wrong and all that, but it's an unfortunate fact. That doesnt mean you have to sell out every week, just those weeks you want to win.
No, it is not. It is, instead, a caution motivated by a desire to add a modest degree of clarity to a process, precisely to avoid the kind of scenario you paint.
So people aren't marking your picture down and leaving harsh comments because of the title you selected ?
I have no way of telling, if they mark it down. No comment was harsh, although I'd welcome these. Some comments drew foregone conclusions though, as is the case also under images which are not mine.
And... there is, of course, the possibility, that I not only meant what I said, but that I was sincere in having said it.
this is the age-old 'if people only got what i was trying to say/do, it would rock their universe' rant
No, it is not. It is, instead, a caution motivated by a desire to add a modest degree of clarity to a process, precisely to avoid the kind of scenario you paint.
Of course it is. :) You're being just as prejudiced when you assume that someone failed to spend the required time analysing a picture to come to grips with an arcane title, that they are just too quick with their assesment, as you accuse them of being in making that assesment. I suspect in most, if not all, cases you simply assume that the voter made a snap judgement, when in fact they may have spent some time, even made extra effort, to try to understand the title, but the clues just weren't sufficient.
Maybe. It's all ambiguous and prone to assumption when the picture and voters in question are annonymous.
You cannot force your own standards on other people. You either have to agree to disagree, hope that someone will like your stuff, or play by the unwritten DPC rules that are fairly easy to interpret if you wish to win.
If you enter submissions aimed at those who 'think' and who want to see hidden meanings or interpretation then great, just dont be mopey if the masses reject you. Even the people who 'think' can follow the 'woo pretty' mentality.
In order to win you have to get more people liking your photograph than anyone else's photograph. That normally means not catering to the niche market. I dont agree with it, it's wrong and all that, but it's an unfortunate fact. That doesnt mean you have to sell out every week, just those weeks you want to win.
It's not about winning or a market, nor about forcing anyone or anything. It's a mere point, which you may choose to either weigh or discard.
