Dec 24th 2009

Wil Davis

thoth

"Two Fellows Sitting Close on a Bench in the Snow"

Now that's a good title. It's fun to discover a new passion.

Wil Davis

thoth wrote:

"Two Fellows Sitting Close on a Bench in the Snow"

Now that's a good title.

Er…

…but don't you think that's just a bit obvious?

- Wil

thoth

Wil Davis wrote:

Er…

…but don't you think that's just a bit obvious?

- Wil

Haha, yes! The title should reflect the obvious as necessary to identify the image. If you reflect more than the obvious then you've started telling the user what to see.

Wil Davis

Fair enough…

…but that was the only Dec 24th image I posted!

(BTW - I'm enjoying your discussion re: titles - you make some very interesting points! )

- Wil

thoth

Wil Davis wrote:

…but that was the only Dec 24th image I posted!

Touché!

Wil Davis wrote:

(BTW - I'm enjoying your discussion re: titles - you make some very interesting points! )

Thank you, Wil. I just hope I can do my part to make this forum a little better.

bdcolen

thoth wrote:

Touché!


Thank you, Wil. I just hope I can do my part to make this forum a little better.

Or not

This is really getting, uh, inane. Let's concentrate on the photography. Two Fellows Sitting On A Bench In The Snow? For real?

A date, a place name, a date and a place, a one word description for you to be able to find the photo.

Tony's recent photo of the watermelon woman is actually a terrific example - of why you don't need captions. The photo shows a woman sleeping in her pile of watermelons. There's a sign that says Maria. The photo says it all! Calling that photo "Maria At Rest" is like calling it "Hey dummy - Ya, you! If you're too damn stupid to figure this out - her name's Maria and she's resting!" (And, yes, Tony, that is a street photo - and it would be much better without the pp.

If someone really thinks that photo requires a caption, how about "Watermellons?"

Here's an example - This one is entitled "Wha?"

Wil Davis

I don't think the picture needs a title. However, I think it would be a better picture if it were grabbed, rather than posed (obvious when you look at the hands, and the fact that she's standing upright…)

(BTW - Looks just like the design I painted on the sunshade for my car…)

Re: Tony's "Watermelons" - I found that one somewhat disturbing; I though it was a corpse at first! I have a problem getting around some of the heavy PP stuff, but that's just me!

- Wil

thoth

bdcolen wrote:

Or not

This is really getting, uh, inane. Let's concentrate on the photography. Two Fellows Sitting On A Bench In The Snow? For real?

A date, a place name, a date and a place, a one word description for you to be able to find the photo.

Go ahead and ignore the thread in which I attempted to discuss this. There are lots of things that I consider "inane" that go on around here -- namely clicking on every damned link in this forum in search of a photo I'm trying to find.

bdcolen wrote:

Tony's recent photo of the watermelon woman is actually a terrific example - of why you don't need captions. The photo shows a woman sleeping in her pile of watermelons. There's a sign that says Maria. The photo says it all! Calling that photo "Maria At Rest" is like calling it "Hey dummy - Ya, you! If you're too damn stupid to figure this out - her name's Maria and she's resting!" (And, yes, Tony, that is a street photo - and it would be much better without the pp.

If someone really thinks that photo requires a caption, how about "Watermellons?"

This is a perfectly reasonable argument, B.D., had I not explained my intent at least a dozen times. I would have thought that you, of all people, would be capable of understanding my very careful explanation that these photos need some form of identification. I find it impossible to believe that this forum is inhabited by a bunch of people who cannot read. That leaves only purposeful ignorance in replies such as this. I am dumbfounded.

thoth

bdcolen wrote:

Two Fellows Sitting On A Bench In The Snow? For real?

And, since I didn't address this directly. I should hope it would be obvious that this was an overly exaggerated attempt at pointing out that the photo can be meaningfully titled, and thus later identified, without providing the viewer with some preconceived notion. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

bdcolen

Wil Davis wrote:

However, I think it would be a better picture if it were grabbed, rather than posed (obvious when you look at the hands, and the fact that she's standing upright…)



- Wil

Let's not forget that there is some pretty impressive photography that is posed. And this isn't it. But is this a street photo, or documentary, or PJ? No. Of course not.