Busted again

TonyCooper

bdcolen

TonyCooper wrote:

I'm going to try once more on the subject of titles -

This is an intriguing photo, but the title - too cute by half - detracts from the image. :cry

[WHAT FOLLOWS IS ADDRESSED TO EVERYONE - I AM NOT TRYING SINGLING OUT TONY.:D ]
As a viewer, I really don't care if the photographer was "busted." And by telling me that the subject is waving at the photographer, the photographer makes me lose interest in the photograph. I'd rather approach this image wondering what's going on: Why is that guy waving? Who's he waving to? What's happening here?" When I'm told this is 'A photo of someone on the street waving at me because he sees I'm going to take his photo' - which is what the title says, I want to yawn and move on. And if I did that, I'd have missed an interesting image.

I realize my views on this subject don't sit well with a number of people on the forum, but I would really urge everyone to try to come up with neutral titles. A great example of a neutral title would be the word "Art," which Jen used as a title for her photo of the anonymous figure looking at the political art in China.
Try telling the viewer the absolute minimum you think he or she needs to know.

"Cody, Wyoming, February 2010." "Waiting on line." "Gathering of Dgrinners."

End of sermon.

DeeCajun

I love the photo and the title.

If not for the title I would have thought the guy was waving as a pose.

But to each their own.

thoth

bdcolen wrote:

[WHAT FOLLOWS IS ADDRESSED TO EVERYONE - I AM NOT TRYING SINGLING OUT TONY.:D ]
As a viewer, I really don't care if the photographer was "busted." And by telling me that the subject is waving at the photographer, the photographer makes me lose interest in the photograph. I'd rather approach this image wondering what's going on: Why is that guy waving? Who's he waving to? What's happening here?" When I'm told this is 'A photo of someone on the street waving at me because he sees I'm going to take his photo' - which is what the title says, I want to yawn and move on. And if I did that, I'd have missed an interesting image.

I realize my views on this subject don't sit well with a number of people on the forum, but I would really urge everyone to try to come up with neutral titles. A great example of a neutral title would be the word "Art," which Jen used as a title for her photo of the anonymous figure looking at the political art in China.
Try telling the viewer the absolute minimum you think he or she needs to know.

"Cody, Wyoming, February 2010." "Waiting on line." "Gathering of Dgrinners."

End of sermon.

Where was this extremely sensible plea back in December?

I want titles and I want them in the manner B.D. has described. And I have to agree, Tony, that this title is too much. The photo, though, is interesting.

rainbow

I like the photo as it shows an interesting slice of life -- especially since I see so many shoe shiners standing around waiting for the customer who seemingly never comes. I do not like your "getting busted" in this photo as I have a preference for subjects who do not look at the camera. In this case, I wonder what he would have done after you snapped this shot and then lowered your camera and waved back (and subsequently snapped another when he looked away?).

For all:
Regarding titles, looking at photos on forums is unnatural because we must encounter the title FIRST. Usually we see the photo (eg -- look at the Blurb book being produced in this forum), THEN read any title or caption. Thus an eye-catching title that piques curiousity has value. Afterwards, it must be memorable enough for the viewer to find again -- so just listing the date of shooting is not very functional. There is a balance point whereby titles are too bland or too prejudicial. There is also a place for titles that surprise and delight (though perhaps not in this forum).

And if comments/captions must be included, perhaps having it after the photo would help some.

TonyCooper

bdcolen wrote:

I'm going to try once more on the subject of titles -

This is an intriguing photo, but the title - too cute by half - detracts from the image. :cry

[WHAT FOLLOWS IS ADDRESSED TO EVERYONE - I AM NOT TRYING SINGLING OUT TONY.:D ]

Hmmm. It just feels that way from this end, I guess. This statement is much like the comments about the title pre-disposing the viewer to what the image is all about. When you say "...I'm not singling out Tony.", the first thing that jumps to mind is "Oh, I didn't think Tony was being singled out, but now that you mention it, there must be history.".

I have a rather quirky sense of humor, and the first thing I thought about when reading this was someone running ahead of BD at the Metropolitian Museum of Art taping over the titles of the paintings so BD could figure out on his own what all those guys were doing in a boat and who the central figure is in Emanuel Leutze's painting.

But, I do respond to suggestions. I'm searching the web for a random title generator for my next submission.

Thanks for at least noticing, though. That more than "Busted", the dry cleaner shot, drew.

bdcolen

TonyCooper wrote:

bdcolen wrote:

I'm going to try once more on the subject of titles -

This is an intriguing photo, but the title - too cute by half - detracts from the image. :cry

[WHAT FOLLOWS IS ADDRESSED TO EVERYONE - I AM NOT TRYING SINGLING OUT TONY.:D ]

Hmmm. It just feels that way from this end, I guess. This statement is much like the comments about the title pre-disposing the viewer to what the image is all about. When you say "...I'm not singling out Tony.", the first thing that jumps to mind is "Oh, I didn't think Tony was being singled out, but now that you mention it, there must be history.".

I have a rather quirky sense of humor, and the first thing I thought about when reading this was someone running ahead of BD at the Metropolitian Museum of Art taping over the titles of the paintings so BD could figure out on his own what all those guys were doing in a boat and who the central figure is in Emanuel Leutze's painting.

But, I do respond to suggestions. I'm searching the web for a random title generator for my next submission.

Thanks for at least noticing, though. That more than "Busted", the dry cleaner shot, drew.

In regards to the paintings, Tony - I would be perfectly happy to view the paintings without the titles. Do I need to know that it's Watson struggling with the shark? I don't think so. Do I need to know that Edward Hopper's diner denizens are "Nighthawks?" Not at all. I am perfectly comfortable just looking at a painting and taking in what's before me on the canvas.

And don't look for a random title generator I'm just suggesting keeping them simple and, I guess, neutral. If your title tells me that your subject saw you, frankly it makes me less interested in looking at the image.

Richard

bdcolen wrote:

In regards to the paintings, Tony - I would be perfectly happy to view the paintings without the titles. Do I need to know that it's Watson struggling with the shark? I don't think so. Do I need to know that Edward Hopper's diner denizens are "Nighthawks?" Not at all. I am perfectly comfortable just looking at a painting and taking in what's before me on the canvas.

Perhaps this works most of the time. But you can also miss out, especially with the surrealists. Magritte's well-known pipe that isn't a pipe is titled, La trahison des images, which translates as the treachery of images.


René Magritte

The title is very much part of the meta-idea. Sometimes titles were used specifically to mislead, confound or perplex, as in Duchamp's The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even.

OK, so what does this have to do with pics on Dgrin? Well, I suppose not a hell of a lot, other than to point out that titles have been used by well-known artists as a complement to their creative efforts.

bdcolen

Richard wrote:

Perhaps this works most of the time. But you can also miss out, especially with the surrealists. Magritte's well-known pipe that isn't a pipe is titled, La trahison des images, which translates as the treachery of images.


René Magritte

The title is very much part of the meta-idea. Sometimes titles were used specifically to mislead, confound or perplex, as in Duchamp's The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even.

OK, so what does this have to do with pics on Dgrin? Well, I suppose not a hell of a lot, other than to point out that titles have been used by well-known artists as a complement to their creative efforts.

Indeed they have - been used by well known artists to complement the work. But as you sagely ask - what the hell does this have to do with photos on Dgrin?

Richard

bdcolen wrote:

Indeed they have - been used by well known artists to complement the work. But as you sagely ask - what the hell does this have to do with photos on Dgrin?

I have difficulty taking this whole title thing very seriously, I guess. Titles are easily edited; pixels are not.

bdcolen

Richard wrote:

I have difficulty taking this whole title thing very seriously, I guess. Titles are easily edited; pixels are not.

True. The problem, however, is that the way the site is set up, the titles serve as our introductions to the photos, and shape our expectations. Just sayin':D

bfjr

bdcolen wrote:

Indeed they have - been used by well known artists to complement the work. But as you sagely ask - what the hell does this have to do with photos on Dgrin?

Yes why are we talking about titles ??

Why aren't we talking about the light and shadows that play on the subjects face. Or the fact of
why is getting a shoe shine when he outa be buying new socks etc. etc. !

Yes why aren't we talking about the image?

DeeCajun

bfjr wrote:

Yes why are we talking about titles ??

Why aren't we talking about the light and shadows that play on the subjects face. Or the fact of
why is getting a shoe shine when he outa be buying new socks etc. etc. !

Yes why aren't we talking about the image?

I love the photo!

My eyes went right to the pair of shoes sitting on the ground. I had to look up to see if he was getting his socks shined.

bfjr

bdcolen wrote:

True. The problem, however, is that the way the site is set up, the titles serve as our introductions to the photos, and shape our expectations. Just sayin':D

True and what's the problem with that, again?

Please an example:

Tony's 1st "Busted" post. When 1st viewed by me, I thought this might be a cop giving a ticket
or something like that. So I open and I see I was wrong and now continue to look and comment or not.
I'm not distracted by a "Title", if anything it does as it should.

In years now long past, I can clearly remember teachers from Art to Calculus saying provide me with
a, "Descriptive Title" as to make me want to continue to look. Enter a Challenge, Provide a Descriptive Title, submit a portfolio, provide a Descriptive Title.
When did these people get it wrong?

No a Title doesn't need to or should provide all the info. Be long or etc.
Descriptive/Cute/Catchy Titles are apropos hear as well as anywhere else.

How about this, Screw the "Titles" and less talk about the images

Oh and to keep with the Ambiguity thingy, maybe I mean the above and maybe I don't

thoth

bfjr wrote:

True and what's the problem with that, again?

Please an example:

Tony's 1st "Busted" post. When 1st viewed by me, I thought this might be a cop giving a ticket
or something like that. So I open and I see I was wrong and now continue to look and comment or not.
I'm not distracted by a "Title", if anything it does as it should.

In years now long past, I can clearly remember teachers from Art to Calculus saying provide me with
a, "Descriptive Title" as to make me want to continue to look. Enter a Challenge, Provide a Descriptive Title, submit a portfolio, provide a Descriptive Title.
When did these people get it wrong?

No a Title doesn't need to or should provide all the info. Be long or etc.
Descriptive/Cute/Catchy Titles are apropos hear as well as anywhere else.

How about this, Screw the "Titles" and less talk about the images

Oh and to keep with the Ambiguity thingy, maybe I mean the above and maybe I don't

You, and many people, seem to miss B.D.'s point about titling. I've had it out with B.D. about titling, which blew up rather extremely, but never once disagreed about what I believe to be his primary point: people uses titles as crutches. Why bother telling the story with your photo at all? Why take the photo? Why not just write a poem?

Titling a photo isn't inherently bad (I argued this not long ago). However, if a title is a substitute for something missing in a photo, either the photo or the title doesn't belong.

bfjr

thoth wrote:

You, and many people, seem to miss B.D.'s point about titling. I've had it out with B.D. about titling, which blew up rather extremely, but never once disagreed about what I believe to be his primary point: people uses titles as crutches. Why bother telling the story with your photo at all? Why take the photo? Why not just write a poem?

Titling a photo isn't inherently bad (I argued this not long ago). However, if a title is a substitute for something missing in a photo, either the photo or the title doesn't belong.

Yes again true, if I looked or used "Titles" the way you describe.

But I never use Titles as you described. I use and view Titles as placeholders for what's about to
come.

thoth

bfjr wrote:

Yes again true, if I looked or used "Titles" the way you describe.

But I never use Titles as you described. I use and view Titles as placeholders for what's about to
come.

I suspect that most believe to be using titles in that way as well. However, it is very easy to fail in that goal and provide too much information about what is to come. I believe that was the point about this particular shot. If the title forces that extra information, even if it wasn't your intent, the outcome is the same wouldn't you say?

TonyCooper

Look, I'm trying to be a nice guy and not cross the PTB, but this is patently ridiculous. The short form of the initial comments was that seeing the title "Busted Again" was yawn-inducing and almost made a viewer move on because he knew what was coming.

What? We aren't interested in seeing photographs just because we suspect what they might portray? I don't care if the title was "Man getting a shoe-shine waves at photographer while sipping a drink". You should still want to see the photograph to see if the man getting a shoe-shine while sipping a drink was interestingly captured and presented.

Now the thread has turned into a hooferaw over whether or not titles detract from photographs. Weird. Especially since the title in question - "Busted Again" - could have any number of meanings.

Photographs stand on their own. It doesn't make any difference if you've been suckered into looking at one because the title enticed you, if you opened it like a Secret Santa gift not knowing what it would be, or if the title tells you exactly what is in the image. Whatever...the photograph is still judged on its own merit. Or should be.

I really can't believe that the participants in this forum have so little interest in actual photographs that they can be put off by a title or that they can't focus their attention on the photograph because they've been somehow clued in in advance as to what the subject matter is.

For those who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, which is the equivalent of not being able to process a title and a photograph at the same time, there's a simple solution: open the most recent post and then click "Previous thread" at the bottom of the page and just look at the photograph.

This is about photographs, isn't it?

bfjr

thoth wrote:

I suspect that most believe to be using titles in that way as well. However, it is very easy to fail in that goal and provide too much information about what is to come. I believe that was the point about this particular shot. If the title forces that extra information, even if it wasn't your intent, the outcome is the same wouldn't you say?

I can sorta understand what your saying, however I remain firm in the notion that a "Title"
needs to occupy a Post (I am only talking about this Forum) and that Title needs to grab the viewers
attention and make them wanna dig deeper i. e. open your post.

If all I could do is post with no Title and let's say just my name, who's gonna look?
Yes keep it short, sweet and to the point but give me a Title I wanna click on.

thoth

bfjr wrote:

If all I could do is post with no Title and let's say just my name, who's gonna look?
Yes keep it short, sweet and to the point but give me a Title I wanna click on.

That is not at all what I am saying. B.D. has suggested this before as an exercise in not using the title crutch, however. My suggestion, which I won't delve into but can be found by looking through my posts, certainly involves titling threads in some manner.