Image Titling

thoth

A recent post by Michswiss has got me wondering if there is something more we can do about how we title our photos.

B.D. lit a fire in this forum in regards to titling with this challenge and I think it worked to get most of us thinking about the impact our titling has on our viewers. Unfortunately, as Richard has eluded to in Michswiss' post, we're left with a real mess on our forum searching hands. I'm certain that any of you who scoured through DGrin to assist you in determining your top 3 images of the year knows that titling "2 from Thoth" every time royally sucks.

So we've managed to go from one extreme, in which we title our viewers thoughts into oblivion, to another, in which our images fall into obscurity due to lack of nomenclature. So can we find a happy medium? "The masters" titled their images and B.D. does too. How about we all go back to titling our images the way we see fit and allow one another to critique that title with the rest of the image. How should we learn to title properly if we never title?

I'm afraid this plea may be a little disjoint, as the percocet for my kidney stones has recently kicked in, but hopefully you can find your way through the literary mess. :thumb

Thoughts?

lizzard_nyc

thoth wrote:

A recent post by Michswiss has got me wondering if there is something more we can do about how we title our photos.

B.D. lit a fire in this forum in regards to titling with this challenge and I think it worked to get most of us thinking about the impact our titling has on our viewers. Unfortunately, as Richard has eluded to in Michswiss' post, we're left with a real mess on our forum searching hands. I'm certain that any of you who scoured through DGrin to assist you in determining your top 3 images of the year knows that titling "2 from Thoth" every time royally sucks.

So we've managed to go from one extreme, in which we title our viewers thoughts into oblivion, to another, in which our images fall into obscurity due to lack of nomenclature. So can we find a happy medium? "The masters" titled their images and B.D. does to. How about we all go back to titling our images the way we see fit and allow one another to critique that title with the rest of the image. How should we learn to title properly if we never title?

I'm afraid this plea may be a little disjoint, as the percocet for my kidney stones has recently kicked in, but hopefully you can find your way through the literary mess.

Thoughts?

I see folks are staying far and away from this post:D .
I understand the theory behind not putting a title on images but I completely agree that "2 from thoth" or "1 from 12/23/09" leaves me a little cold, and makes it more difficult to search.

So while I have no answers for you, I'll say I concur, isn't there a happy medium? Or is putting a title on images much like shooting in color?
I noticed the other day that B.D. referred to his kids as "they are not caption people" or something similar .

I like titles what can I say, but I do see how they can get one into trouble.

Richard

lizzard_nyc wrote:

I like titles what can I say, but I do see how they can get one into trouble.

I will repeat here what I said in another thread: it's entirely reasonable to give a Dgrin thread a descriptive title without implying that it's the title or caption to the picture you post.

thoth

lizzard_nyc wrote:

I see folks are staying far and away from this post:D .
I understand the theory behind not putting a title on images but I completely agree that "2 from thoth" or "1 from 12/23/09" leaves me a little cold, and makes it more difficult to search.

So while I have no answers for you, I'll say I concur, isn't there a happy medium? Or is putting a title on images much like shooting in color?
I noticed the other day that B.D. referred to his kids as "they are not caption people" or something similar .

I like titles what can I say, but I do see how they can get one into trouble.

I'm hoping this thread will spark a little debate, and possibly a consensus, on how and when to title an image. I spent a lot of time thinking about the titles the images I chose for the YIR exercise and think I did a decent job of identifying them without describing them. I think that's key. A title is extremely useful in identifying an image but should not describe the image.

thoth

Richard wrote:

I will repeat here what I said in another thread: it's entirely reasonable to give a Dgrin thread a descriptive title without implying that it's the title or caption to the picture you post.

Your post inspired me to create this thread, Richard. I think there is a partial truth in your comment but it may not be that easy. The title of a thread is going to set the tone for the tread's contents and the viewer will have a preconceived notion even before clicking. If the image inside says "untitled" we are still going to revert back to that thread title to fill in the blank. I do think it's important, though, that we have something more meaningful in that title.

Thus, I hope the community can take on the responsibility of helping one another title in such a way as to identify our images without destroying their anonymity. I think it was a good move for B.D. to shake us up by suggesting we stop titling altogether for a time but many, like myself, have taken that taboo a little too far. I think we need a formal effort to undo our titling problems.

lizzard_nyc

thoth wrote:

I'm hoping this thread will spark a little debate, and possibly a consensus, on how and when to title an image. I spent a lot of time thinking about the titles the images I chose for the YIR exercise and think I did a decent job of identifying them without describing them. I think that's key. A title is extremely useful in identifying an image but should not describe the image.

Travis,
Yes yes--
For the YIR exercise I had titled my favorite shot "a Depressing Brunch" or something similar and Rutt encouraged me to change it to "Brunch" and let the viewer decide--and it does work much better. I'd rather that then just "1 from Liz"

Richard--que? Perhaps the link to that thread--I think I know what you mean, but I want to make sure.

thoth

lizzard_nyc wrote:

Richard--que? Perhaps the link to that thread--I think I know what you mean, but I want to make sure.

Richard is referring to Michswiss' thread linked in my original post.

michswiss

I'm probably one of the most diligent followers / worst offenders of minimalism when it comes to thread titles. It probably costs me views and critiques as often my posts will slide straight down the page, not withstanding that it might just be the images.

But I agree that descriptive thread titles are useful, nee necessary in forums. My only hope is that they remain, for the most part, neutral in tone and accurate in description. Sort of like how metadata or keywording is supposed to work.

RogersDA

I (and others who have been around here a while) may remember a thread from early 2007 where the photog used a title that, to him, represented the image quite well. But for others without the benefit of the photog's conversation with the subject were lost as to the meaning behind the title relative to the image.

The heated discussion that resulted was not pretty for many reasons.

So - title the photo - but maybe give some insight into what inspired you to come up with the words.

Wil Davis

lizzard_nyc wrote:

snip…
Or is putting a title on images much like shooting in color?
…snip

I'm not sure that I understand this statement, Lizzard…

…I think that shooting in colour and shooting in B & W are two totally different things. In my opinion titling is a bit like explaining a joke, although there are times when the title is part of the joke.

…perhaps the question should be "Does it really matter?"

Although you might also argue that if it needs a title, then the picture hasn't worked…

- Wil

thoth

Wil Davis wrote:

I'm not sure that I understand this statement, Lizzard…

I believe she is referring to the taboo nature of color photos, in this forum, being similar to that of titling.

Wil Davis wrote:

…I think that shooting in colour and shooting in B & W are two totally different things. In my opinion titling is a bit like explaining a joke, although there are times when the title is part of the joke.

…perhaps the question should be "Does it really matter?"

Although you might also argue that if it needs a title, then the picture hasn't worked…

- Wil

I think what we need to get past here is the association between titling and describing. I certainly agree that an image that needs a description is, more than likely, unsuccessful. However, a title does not have to (or rather should not) serve this purpose. A title is an identifier and identification is important.

RogersDA wrote:

I (and others who have been around here a while) may remember a thread from early 2007 where the photog used a title that, to him, represented the image quite well. But for others without the benefit of the photog's conversation with the subject were lost as to the meaning behind the title relative to the image.

The heated discussion that resulted was not pretty for many reasons.

So - title the photo - but maybe give some insight into what inspired you to come up with the words.

Again, I hope this thread helps to squash the notion that titles exist as a means of describing the experience of viewing a photo. Even a back story explaining why you took a photo can undermine the viewing experience and nobody wants that.

What I am proposing here is that this community eases off the 'no titles' taboo and adopt a 'no titles that tell me what to see in this photo' taboo. There is absolutely nothing wrong with simple titles that serve to identify an image: 'Woman With Child', 'Rice Vendor', 'Dancing Girl.' This is where we need to be.

thoth

michswiss wrote:

But I agree that descriptive thread titles are useful, nee necessary in forums. My only hope is that they remain, for the most part, neutral in tone and accurate in description. Sort of like how metadata or keywording is supposed to work.

That is it exactly, Jen. I admire your work and your strict 'no interference' policy when it comes to the viewing experience. I'm glad to hear your on board.

Wil Davis

thoth wrote:

snip…
What I am proposing here is that this community eases off the 'no titles' taboo and adopt a 'no titles that tell me what to see in this photo' taboo. There is absolutely nothing wrong with simple titles that serve to identify an image: 'Woman With Child', 'Rice Vendor', 'Dancing Girl.' This is where we need to be.

That certainly makes sense; thanks for the clarification!

- Wil

rutt

How do you think B.D.'s entry in the YIR gallery adheres to his idea that titles shouldn't tell us what to look for?

B.D. is a radical on this topic, but lots of great photographers have used titles as powerful elements in their work. It's worth listening to B.D. because images which tell stories contain more interesting elements and learning to make images which don't need titles will improve your photography. But it's also important to stick to your guns when you think a title really adds to an image.

thoth

rutt wrote:

How do you think B.D.'s entry in the YIR gallery adheres to his idea that titles shouldn't tell us what to look for?

B.D. is a radical on this topic, but lots of great photographers have used titles as powerful elements in their work. It's worth listening to B.D. because images which tell stories contain more interesting elements and learning to make images which don't need titles will improve your photography. But it's also important to stick to your guns when you think a title really adds to an image.

It's interesting that you chose B.D.'s image as a topic here. I first saw that image yesterday evening and was immediately taken back by the title he chose. It didn't seem like B.D. at all. However, without that title, B.D. doesn't have an image worth showing. The image doesn't 'stand alone' and, with all the hard and fast rules we have around here, it must be a failure right? Nope. But this image isn't a standard. It's an exception to the "rule" that images don't need a description. B.D. can do that because he knows his stuff. Can I do that because B.D. knows his stuff?

Again, though, I feel like we're talking about two different things. Your statement that, "learning to make images which don't need titles will improve your photography" is akin to saying "learning to produce cars parts with no nomenclature will make you a better car part manufacturer." No, the car parts will be the same but you will no longer be able to find them!

The problem here is that people use the title for all sorts of nasty things for which it wasn't intended. The purpose of a title isn't to describe the viewing process or let the user in on a secret (unless it is in the case of B.D.'s picture mentioned above. But hey, let's not muddy the waters here). The purpose of a title is to identify a picture so that I can say, "Hey, 'Picture A' was fantastic!" I'm getting awfully tired of saying, "Hey, the third picture from the left on the four row that has that woman and that dog and that unknown thing sucks!"

rutt

thoth wrote:

Again, though, I feel like we're talking about two different things. Your statement that, "learning to make images which don't need titles will improve your photography" is akin to saying "learning to produce cars parts with no nomenclature will make you a better car part manufacturer." No, the car parts will be the same but you will no longer be able to find them!"

Take me more literally. If you learn to make images which don't need titles, you will have gained a valuable skill as a photographer. You may not always refrain from using titles. You may not always make images which don't need titles. But one of B.D.'s points is that most of us don't have that skill and would benefit from learning it. I agree with this.

B.D. has another point which I don't agree with: titles never add to an image. I'm not really even sure whether he believes this. He often says that there is no rule that can't sometimes be broken to advantage.

In any case, I think titles can be an important and enjoyable part of looking at pictures and can enhance the experience. I also agree about often wanting a handle. I've been using the SmugMug thumbs when they are available.

thoth

rutt wrote:

Take me more literally. If you learn to make images which don't need titles, you will have gained a valuable skill as a photographer. You may not always refrain from using titles. You may not always make images which don't need titles. But one of B.D.'s points is that most of us don't have that skill and would benefit from learning it. I agree with this.

B.D. has another point which I don't agree with: titles never add to an image. I'm not really even sure whether he believes this. He often says that there is no rule that can't sometimes be broken to advantage.

In any case, I think titles can be an important and enjoyable part of looking at pictures and can enhance the experience.

These are excellent points and I fully agree. Images should not [necessarily] need words to get the point across. However, B.D.'s "The Bride" gives us a great example of how this is not a steadfast rule.

rutt wrote:

I also agree about often wanting a handle. I've been using the SmugMug thumbs when they are available.

This is what I'm driving at. While "words versus no words" is a compelling discussion it is really beyond the scope of my original post. Rather, I want to see images titles that give me a reference to that image at a later date. Since it is extremely difficult to identify a photo without describing it, I hoped that the forum community could come together with critiques toward that end.