Image titles in the Street/PJ realm...

M38A1

OK, first I must say that I am new to this and have learned a tremendous amount in the short time I've been lurking and posting. From the 'masters', I take more time in my composition and technical aspects of an image and try to work hard on the subject matter/story of the image. I've even tried to get the images to draw you in so to speak, but sheesh - this is hard work.

Recently, titles have come into play as they relate to images. I will readily admit I've always just thought of a title as a 'framing' reference for an image, one that I thought conveyed something about the image or put the image into context.

But in this genre, the title appears to have much greater implications.

So, what would be some general guidelines for titles in Street/PJ? I'm thinking if I can wrap my head around a basic body of knowledge, I can put better titles with images and hopefully increase the overall quality of the experience you suffer through.

.

richardman

I don't know about in this forum, but think about all the great photos you have seen, from Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa of old, to Elliot Erwitt, Peter Turnley, and on and on. All the people that are photojournalists. Now think of how many captions of these photos you can remember.

I don't know about anyone else, but for me, I can recall a lot of great images, but I cannot recall any of the caption.

bfjr

Yes through the years the "Title" thing keeps coming up.

After many debates/discussion here and elsewhere here is how I handle my Titles.

A Title is required by the forum so as to be able to post.
A Title is not required by your image, if it is the image is not strong enough.

Only once in almost 10,000 posts has my Title elevated my image or at least I was told that.
It was a post titled, "Dangerous Liaison"

I think the point here is that we want to see your Image and respond in kind to it and not your Title.

Years ago (many) I did work professionally in PJ - 1st a small local paper where I had to bring both images and text to the office in hopes of selling the package. Then at a larger paper I would only shoot the images and a writer would add the words. This is a horse of a different color and not germane to this discussion.

After posting I know I'll get slammed with countless opinions / and examples of how I am wrong.
For me I decided some time ago to work on my Images and not my Titles. I have a long way to go.

torags

Me too; always learning

M38A1

So while sitting in the bow-blind this evening and thinking about this a bit more, another question came to mind related to this....

Is Street really a different genre than PJ? In my mind I sort of think street is the everyday in's and out's of life, moments captured supporting that daily grind. Titles would seem to lend themselves a bit for this. Whereas PJ is really a more disciplined approach to reporting fact, news, events and such, thus the titles and accuracy implications.

Is there a subtle difference between the two as I surmise?

.

bfjr

M38A1 wrote: »

So while sitting in the bow-blind this evening and thinking about this a bit more, another question came to mind related to this....

Is Street really a different genre than PJ? In my mind I sort of think street is the everyday in's and out's of life, moments captured supporting that daily grind. Titles would seem to lend themselves a bit for this. Whereas PJ is really a more disciplined approach to reporting fact, news, events and such, thus the titles and accuracy implications.

Is there a subtle difference between the two as I surmise?

.

Yes and more then subtle.

Street Photography - is what we/I do here. Capturing everyday life moments like you said.
PJ / Photo Journalisum - is a Carreer choice.

I know several working pros, and street is their hobby.

Make sense?

Art Scott

Benjamin is correct at least from my mis construed understandings of the subject...
here is a link to a hard working PJ from North Carolina..... Jerry Nelson .... Take a look befriend him on FB and he just might answer your questions....or maybe not....he is very outspoken.....

Actually ANY PHOTOGRAPH should stand on its own with out a title, whether PJ...Street or Fine Art....for me titles are simply there to maybe tell where the image was taken.....

Richard

I've always found it a little bewildering that the most contentious threads on the Street forum usually concern the title rather than the image. I suppose different people have different expectations and standards when viewing a post here, and that's sometimes the source of difficulty. To me, there is a spectrum ranging from art at one end to journalism at the other. At the art end, creativity is all important and IMO, there is absolutely no reason to insist on objectivity in shooting, processing or labeling. Journalism, on the other hand, claims to present an objective report of some moment, so visual trickery is not permitted and statements should be true. I would stress, though, that even though PJ appears in the forum name, our emphasis needs to remain on the photo part, not the journalism part. Street is a fuzzy category, sometimes closer to art, sometimes closer to journalism, so I tend to avoid imposing strict criteria unless the poster has made claims that are clearly not substantiated. I think of my own thread titles as simply labels, not necessarily titles of the pics and certainly not captions. I have enough trouble just getting the images right, and as I have said before, text is much easier to change than pixels.

M38A1

...my head hurts now.

Yet I believe I'm starting to wrap my arms around this, so keep 'em coming.

jonh68

First you have to have a common definition of what pj work is. While photography isn't capturing reality in the truest sense, pj work tries to be as honest as possible about what is going on in the picture because it has to stand up to the facts of the scene. While a picture can tell a thousand words, for pj work it has to be put into context. Take a reaction to a victorious soccer goal and the woman who made the goal starts to cry. Without a proper caption, you don't know if its tears of joy or sorrow. The safest caption would be "player x gets emotional after scoring the winning goal". If the player is interviewed and she said I had tears of joy, then you can go back and say "player x cries tears of joy after scoring the winning goal". Lets say the player gets a corporate contract and they want to use that picture in a marketing campaign. Then that same picture is being used for marketing, not pj/editorial.

If you want to be a photojournalist, you HAVE TO be able to caption a picture and it HAS to be put into context as accurately as possible.

Photojournalism isn't streetphotoraphy, but street photography can be journalistic in nature. In the strictest sense, pj work is being accurate with your captions if you intend to have them and then call your work pj. If you intend to make implications about the scene, then it becomes PR/propoganda . You cannot make assumptions with your captions. That isn't photojournalism.

torags

M38A1 wrote: »

OK, first I must say that I am new to this and have learned a tremendous amount in the short time I've been lurking and posting. From the 'masters', I take more time in my composition and technical aspects of an image and try to work hard on the subject matter/story of the image. I've even tried to get the images to draw you in so to speak, but sheesh - this is hard work.

Recently, titles have come into play as they relate to images. I will readily admit I've always just thought of a title as a 'framing' reference for an image, one that I thought conveyed something about the image or put the image into context.

But in this genre, the title appears to have much greater implications.

So, what would be some general guidelines for titles in Street/PJ? I'm thinking if I can wrap my head around a basic body of knowledge, I can put better titles with images and hopefully increase the overall quality of the experience you suffer through.

.

Allow me to make the case for captions...

Captions and titles are the same. Don't believe me? Look it up in dictionary.com

I'm not going to touch the myth of the purity of photojournalism, that's another entire thread. I'll post this picture without a title....


Captions on photos have enriched my life measurably. I have gone halfway around the world shooting as a result of captions.

Motorsports shooters have to caption their shots, with track ID, classes of the race and maybe even the subject of the image. Landscape shooters identify the place of the image, birders the specie of bird. I have learned of places and went to them to shoot the same image, at great cost of $ and time; but the adventure was worth it.

It seems to me this caption resistance is in this forum, I have not seen it anywhere else. To suggest a caption diminishes an image is plain wrong and to the photog who claims "his story" is better without a caption is pure vanity. The viewer will decide if the story has that value or a different one.

The photo above is of the wave in Coyote Buttes NP in Utah 5 years ago. The place is an icon for landscape photogs. I drove 12 hours to that destination, because I won a lottery spot for access (only 20 people allowed in per day); the last eight miles over a dirt road; then a two hour hike in to get the shots.

What's so special about this shot? The puddle with the reflection. This spot is desert with little rain, so to be there when there is a puddle - is special. There are very few shots with a reflection so this is rare. I wouldn't call it a good shot; the viewer has that right - but I can say I'm proud of it.

The story is: I happened to meet a German couple a 6:45am in the dark, in the parking lot. Being alone, I was glad to hike along with them (he had google earth topo maps, where we could follow the hill contours to get there.) I got to the wave at 9am, then we went separate ways. It was overcast and started to spritzle at 11am. I started to hike out, I didn't have maps; I thought I could follow the footprints left in the silt washes to get out.

While hiking it began to rain heavily and that washed away my footprints. I was disoriented and it took me 3 hrs to get to my car. It was really raining hard and I was concerned about the slippery 8mi clay road and the washed out portion I drove down and out of when dry. I hoped the rain hadn't accumulated to a wash level to take me & my car down stream.

I hauled ass on that clay road slipping/sliding until the washout, the water was about a foot+ deep & narrow; the bank 6' deep - 30% grade. I figured I could make with my AWD Element if I sped down fast enough to carry me over the up hill side. If I didn't make I was screwed; I made it.

I couldn't go to Upper Antelope that day because they close it on rainy days, because of the death a number of French tourists in an under ground flash flood.

Was it worth it? To me yes & captions got me there.

To caption or not to caption really shouldn't be an issue; captions inform, articulate a photog's message to an uninformed viewer and can be metaphors for other occasions and for those who don't caption; that's fine don't. They have made a difference in my life and I'm grateful the the photogs who did.

If you read this; thanks for bearing the ramblings of an old man

michswiss

This is where, in my view, there's a difference between Street, PJ, and Documentary. In my opinion, a good street shot defies any title or caption. The photographer or editor should only provide one if they want to collapse the alternative interpretations of the image, essentially destroying any WTF factor or independent exploration by the viewer. Journalistic imagery almost requires a caption or at least to be embedded within a written work. But the caption should be factual and verified. Docu can benefit from a description if the story can't be contained in the single image or a short series.

What annoys me about the way the forum software works is that there has to be a thread title and so many people use that as the caption. It can't help but selectively colour (ha!) the viewer's first impression of what's contained within. If a caption is needed, it would be nice if it were below the image. For me with the rare exception, I try to keep my thread titles as neutral as possible.

damonff

michswiss wrote: »

This is where, in my view, there's a difference between Street, PJ, and Documentary. In my opinion, a good street shot defies any title or caption. The photographer or editor should only provide one if they want to collapse the alternative interpretations of the image, essentially destroying any WTF factor or independent exploration by the viewer. Journalistic imagery almost requires a caption or at least to be embedded within a written work. But the caption should be factual and verified. Docu can benefit from a description if the story can't be contained in the single image or a short series.

What annoys me about the way the forum software works is that there has to be a thread title and so many people use that as the caption. It can't help but selectively colour (ha!) the viewer's first impression of what's contained within. If a caption is needed, it would be nice if it were below the image. For me with the rare exception, I try to keep my thread titles as neutral as possible.

totally agree

torags

michswiss wrote: »

This is where, in my view, there's a difference between Street, PJ, and Documentary. In my opinion, a good street shot defies any title or caption. The photographer or editor should only provide one if they want to collapse the alternative interpretations of the image, essentially destroying any WTF factor or independent exploration by the viewer. Journalistic imagery almost requires a caption or at least to be embedded within a written work. But the caption should be factual and verified. Docu can benefit from a description if the story can't be contained in the single image or a short series.

What annoys me about the way the forum software works is that there has to be a thread title and so many people use that as the caption. It can't help but selectively colour (ha!) the viewer's first impression of what's contained within. If a caption is needed, it would be nice if it were below the image. For me with the rare exception, I try to keep my thread titles as neutral as possible.

Have you considered using a numerical post system to avoid prejudicing the viewer of your pictures?

for example: first two digits used for a segment of interest; the rest for the specific images. The folks who like your work would see it & the rest who need direction might not. A productive by product might be cataloging your shots.


It might help in peaceful coexistance

richardman

Torags, I don't know about other people, but I would never say that having a caption diminishes an image.

What I see, and I am sorry to sound harsh, is that a clever caption usually accompanies a weak photo.

Your canyon photo is a fine photo. The water reflection is a special treat. I don't know what you caption it, but calling it out would probably have me say, "hey, that's a special circumstance. Neat." Does it notch it up for me? Probably just a tad, but only to respect you for how hard you work - which, frankly and unfortunately, "nobody cares" except us photogs, because we are the ones that work hard and can appreciate it.

For you though, it's totally different. You worked hard and got an image that you or anyone else has rarely gotten. If I were you, I would be very proud too.

torags wrote: »

Allow me to make the case for captions...

Captions and titles are the same. Don't believe me? Look it up in dictionary.com

I'm not going to touch the myth of the purity of photojournalism, that's another entire thread. I'll post this picture without a title....


Captions on photos have enriched my life measurably. I have gone halfway around the world shooting as a result of captions.

Motorsports shooters have to caption their shots, with track ID, classes of the race and maybe even the subject of the image. Landscape shooters identify the place of the image, birders the specie of bird. I have learned of places and went to them to shoot the same image, at great cost of $ and time; but the adventure was worth it.

It seems to me this caption resistance is in this forum, I have not seen it anywhere else. To suggest a caption diminishes an image is plain wrong and to the photog who claims "his story" is better without a caption is pure vanity. The viewer will decide if the story has that value or a different one.

The photo above is of the wave in Coyote Buttes NP in Utah 5 years ago. The place is an icon for landscape photogs. I drove 12 hours to that destination, because I won a lottery spot for access (only 20 people allowed in per day); the last eight miles over a dirt road; then a two hour hike in to get the shots.

What's so special about this shot? The puddle with the reflection. This spot is desert with little rain, so to be there when there is a puddle - is special. There are very few shots with a reflection so this is rare. I wouldn't call it a good shot; the viewer has that right - but I can say I'm proud of it.

The story is: I happened to meet a German couple a 6:45am in the dark, in the parking lot. Being alone, I was glad to hike along with them (he had google earth topo maps, where we could follow the hill contours to get there.) I got to the wave at 9am, then we went separate ways. It was overcast and started to spritzle at 11am. I started to hike out, I didn't have maps; I thought I could follow the footprints left in the silt washes to get out.

While hiking it began to rain heavily and that washed away my footprints. I was disoriented and it took me 3 hrs to get to my car. It was really raining hard and I was concerned about the slippery 8mi clay road and the washed out portion I drove down and out of when dry. I hoped the rain hadn't accumulated to a wash level to take me & my car down stream.

I hauled ass on that clay road slipping/sliding until the washout, the water was about a foot+ deep & narrow; the bank 6' deep - 30% grade. I figured I could make with my AWD Element if I sped down fast enough to carry me over the up hill side. If I didn't make I was screwed; I made it.

I couldn't go to Upper Antelope that day because they close it on rainy days, because of the death a number of French tourists in an under ground flash flood.

Was it worth it? To me yes & captions got me there.

To caption or not to caption really shouldn't be an issue; captions inform, articulate a photog's message to an uninformed viewer and can be metaphors for other occasions and for those who don't caption; that's fine don't. They have made a difference in my life and I'm grateful the the photogs who did.

If you read this; thanks for bearing the ramblings of an old man

torags

thanks Richard, that's very kind of you

bdcolen

I'd argue, quite strenuously, that in any area of photography other than photo journalism, if your image needs a title, you need a new image. Photography is a visual media; it's appeal and connection are visual. If the photo is any good, we will 'get it.' If the photo is good, we don't need you to tell us it's "shadows and smoke," we see that. We don't need you to tell us it's "aunt rose crossing the street," because either it's a strong image or it isn't, and it really doesn't matter whether the subject is "aunt Rose" or cousin Gertrude. Ideally, the same should hold true of photo journalism, but the reality is that many images produced as photo journalism are photo illustration, meant to accompany written material, so the images often are pretty dull, and are only saved by the fact that the person shaking hands with cousin Gertrude is the President of the United States. On the other hand, on a forum such as this, does a photographically strong image of a starving baby, or a soaking wet OWS demonstrator need a caption? Not really.

Bottom line - I don't think any of us would lose anything if we all titled our work "untitled." As Richard Mann said, think of all the great photos you've seen by great photographers - and try to remember what any of their titles are. Oh, okay, you probably remember Migrant Mother. But did you need the title to be moved by the image? Did you need the title to remember the image?

rainbow

It is difficult to disagree with B. D.'s points. When I have a photo that might speak for itself, I try to choose a neutral title to allow the viewer an unbiased exposure to the photo.

But I am also one who is appreciative of clever and witty titles and will sometime delay posting until I have a title that I like. And there are titles that can increase a viewer's experience.

One other practical use is the identification of threads. If a poster has four threads called "Untitled", it makes it frustrating to follow any particular one. OTOH, one should not be so explicit to take away any joy of discovery for the viewer.

Where the titling runs into problems is when it leads or misleads the viewer to conclusions that may or may not be warranted. Then arguing about the title instead of the photograph's merits (or lack thereof) often ensues. So "Occupy Oakland" is a fair title. "Unpatriotic protestors" would not be. Judgemental and politically charged titles are best avoided.