A better caption might be, "Looking for Sarah Connor."
I dunno; I think the background to the left just distracts from the guy. Maybe if you cropped it down so that he's in the left 1/3 instead of the right 1/3 it would be more focused on the subject.
What I said when I saw the Grand Canyon for the first time: "The wide ain't wide enough and the zoom don't zoom enough!"
This is a nice image for sure. I think I'd agree that it could use a shave on the left but not too much. Nice shot.
The title, though, could use a very close shave. How about simply: "Info Center"? That title could be pushing it a bit as it gives the reader a push towards a subject in the photo but I think, in this case, it is fairly obvious. The point is to not reveal any "truth" in the title.
This is a nice image for sure. I think I'd agree that it could use a shave on the left but not too much. Nice shot.
The title, though, could use a very close shave. How about simply: "Info Center"? That title could be pushing it a bit as it gives the reader a push towards a subject in the photo but I think, in this case, it is fairly obvious. The point is to not reveal any "truth" in the title.
thumb Thank you. I'm going to adjust crop and see if it does anything for the image.I also really appreciate the comments on titling images. I am always conflicted about as it seems others are sometimes too.
thumb Thank you. I'm going to adjust crop and see if it does anything for the image.I also really appreciate the comments on titling images. I am always conflicted about as it seems others are sometimes too.
I, too, am not 100% when it comes to titling. I have, for a long time, just avoided it completely but recently decided to turn over a new leaf. I'm just now trying to be proactive about proper titling.
I do think that the new crop strengthens the image. Nice job.
Travis
0
black mambaRegistered UsersPosts: 8,323Major grins
edited December 25, 2009
I like your image. I had to laugh at the reference to Sarah Connor made by WillCAD.
Regarding titling: this is an area so fraught with subjectivesness that it's almost pointless to make comments about the choice made by the post originator. Seldom do I see a viewer-proposed alternate title be any better than the one accompanying the photo. By the very nature of it, my own comment right here is about as subjective as it can be. Judge a picture by its merits and quit paying attention to the title.
Tom
I always wanted to lie naked on a bearskin rug in front of a fireplace. Cracker Barrel didn't take kindly to it.
Judge a picture by its merits and quit paying attention to the title.
This is an impressively matter-of-fact statement for such a "subjective" area. Perhaps you could come argue your point in the thread intended for this discussion.
Travis
0
black mambaRegistered UsersPosts: 8,323Major grins
edited December 25, 2009
thoth...
I would have sworn that this thread was appropriate for a comment about titling, since you saw fit to address that issue within it twice before I did.
For someone to assume that they are more adept at titling an image is, as far as I'm concerned, an exercise in ego stroking. I defy anyone to propose an alternate " proper " title that does not reflect his own personal bias and predjudice.
The broader question; why get tied up in all this titling crap to start with?
The photographer can elect to title or not to title. The reviewer should assess the work based on its photographic qualities alone.....who cares what the shooter did or did not call the picture.
Tom
I always wanted to lie naked on a bearskin rug in front of a fireplace. Cracker Barrel didn't take kindly to it.
I would have sworn that this thread was appropriate for a comment about titling, since you saw fit to address that issue within it twice before I did.
I would agree that this is a fine place to discuss Nikconic1's title, which is what I did. I do not agree that this is a fine place to address the theory of titling.
For someone to assume that they are more adept at titling an image is, as far as I'm concerned, an exercise in ego stroking. I defy anyone to propose an alternate " proper " title that does not reflect his own personal bias and predjudice.
The broader question; why get tied up in all this titling crap to start with?
The photographer can elect to title or not to title. The reviewer should assess the work based on its photographic qualities alone.....who cares what the shooter did or did not call the picture.
Tom
Titling, or not titling, is an extremely important aspect of some genres of photography. A very large part of this forum's participants agree that this is true for the genres it contains. Again, I invite you to bring your comments to the thread I linked so that we can leave Nikonic1's thread alone.
Comments
I dunno; I think the background to the left just distracts from the guy. Maybe if you cropped it down so that he's in the left 1/3 instead of the right 1/3 it would be more focused on the subject.
roflroflroflroflroflroflrofl
http://nikonic1.smugmug.com/
The title, though, could use a very close shave. How about simply: "Info Center"? That title could be pushing it a bit as it gives the reader a push towards a subject in the photo but I think, in this case, it is fairly obvious. The point is to not reveal any "truth" in the title.
thumb Thank you. I'm going to adjust crop and see if it does anything for the image.I also really appreciate the comments on titling images. I am always conflicted about as it seems others are sometimes too.
http://nikonic1.smugmug.com/
http://nikonic1.smugmug.com/
I do think that the new crop strengthens the image. Nice job.
Regarding titling: this is an area so fraught with subjectivesness that it's almost pointless to make comments about the choice made by the post originator. Seldom do I see a viewer-proposed alternate title be any better than the one accompanying the photo. By the very nature of it, my own comment right here is about as subjective as it can be. Judge a picture by its merits and quit paying attention to the title.
Tom
http://nikonic1.smugmug.com/
I would have sworn that this thread was appropriate for a comment about titling, since you saw fit to address that issue within it twice before I did.
For someone to assume that they are more adept at titling an image is, as far as I'm concerned, an exercise in ego stroking. I defy anyone to propose an alternate " proper " title that does not reflect his own personal bias and predjudice.
The broader question; why get tied up in all this titling crap to start with?
The photographer can elect to title or not to title. The reviewer should assess the work based on its photographic qualities alone.....who cares what the shooter did or did not call the picture.
Tom
Titling, or not titling, is an extremely important aspect of some genres of photography. A very large part of this forum's participants agree that this is true for the genres it contains. Again, I invite you to bring your comments to the thread I linked so that we can leave Nikonic1's thread alone.