Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)

The ball was about to drop, and it did. Until you mentioned the possibility that the shot was missed, I never saw it that way. So in this case, without a title the viewer has a choice of what happened. Of course, because I know what happened, my choice of title reflected the outcome.
Interesting........

Bill_de Loc: US

If you are judging a picture it should stand on it's own.

If the title is needed to explain the reason for the photo and the photo is need for the title to make sense, neither stands on its own.

But that doesn't mean there is no place for the 'collaboration'. Advertising comes to mind.

--

Country Boy Loc: Beckley, WV

If your intent is to make a joke or light humor a title is fine but I agree with others that a good photo needs no support. My first thought was every photo needs a title, the one I name it in the pc file. Other than that anything whether it is a comment or company name pulls your eye and attention away from the photo so that the viewer does not give it full attention.

garygrafic Loc: South Florida

For a news event,.......a caption is a must, any other type of photo, a title is a 'no-no'. If the picture is any good it will stand on it's own.

treadwl Loc: South Florida

My personal feeling that that a photo should stand on its own merit. If a title is necessary then the photo has failed on some level. A well composed, technically sound image will simply speak for itself. Remember the old phrase: "A picture is worth a thousand words". You can't make a title that long. :-)

Larry

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Purely my opinion. As in many things in life there is no "correct" answer. If the photo is for sale. or to be hung in a display-No title. If the pic is for casual viewing (whatever that means) if it explains or adds interest a title can't hurt. I have acoupla photos hung on walls in my house, none have titles.

fishmaven Loc: Ohio right now

A photo needs a title in your files so that you can find it, I don't find a series of numbers to be enlightening. If you make a copy of the photo for an exhibit, you should follow the rules of the competition. If your photos are displayed in a gallery, I'd include a short text about each photo, allow the gallery owner or manager to decide whether to include the blurb in a cell near the photo. If you don't like his decision, don't exhibit there anymore. If you send the photo to someone it's your choice whether to include the title or not. Just my opinion...
Dan Martin
fishmaven@gmail.com

old poet

No difference with photos and any other visual art. It's up to the artist, or if required, the publisher.

kensil

I think it was Ansel Adams who once said that "A true photograph need not be explained, nor can it be contained in words".
In addition, don't know where I heard/read it, 'a work of art should stand on its own...no need for a wall label to explain why it exists'...
Personally, I don't like labels but many exhibits/competitions require one. Cheers!

Papa Joe Loc: Midwest U.S.

My opinion: A title may help to explain a photo but I don't think it can/will 'improve' the photo, which should be judged by its quality alone.

BlueMorel Loc: Southwest Michigan

I try to title my landscapes as soon after I take them as possible. My 2008 photos of various mountain peaks would be more interesting to me if only I could remember which one i0s which. As it is I need to arrange my photos by date and get out my map to figure them out.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

As usual, I totally disagree with most of you. When I snap the shutter, if I do not have a title in mind, then I may have taken a pretty picture, but it has not "spoken" to me. Those images that "speak" to me are the better images. Also, when keeping inventory of my finished, framed images, applying a title reminds me immediately of a number of facts about the image - where it is, when it was perhaps, what prompted me to photograph it, etc. When I look at the titles of other people's images, the title gives me an insight into their thought pattern, or simply where the scene is located.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

A title lets us know what you were thinking when you took the photo but does absolutely nothing, in my opinion, to make the photo better or worse. The photo should be judged on its merits as a photograph, not on some catchy title you give it. Your example of the golfer with, "Yes", as a title does not make the photo any better.

Dennis

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I have found that my framed images sell better with a catchy title.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

In your example, no, the title (caption) made no difference to how I perceived the image.

I am not one who thinks every photo “should” have a title, but I believe strongly that in some circumstances titles can play a significant and positive role in a viewers final perception of an image.

Outside of photojournalism, where a caption is usually included to help integrate the image with the news story, titles become largely superfluous. In most cases, a title doesn’t alter how a person perceives the photo. The subject is very straight forward and obvious; a title adds no information that is useful. However, there are times when a title can have a subtle positive effect because it adds some context that “helps” the viewer interpret what they are seeing. There are other instances where a “poetic” title can help guide the viewer toward a particular emotional response, or provide some sense of mystery or intrigue or nostalgia which strengthens the viewers connection to the image.

Here are a few examples. In the first, the title is pretty much un-necessary. You know what you are seeing as soon as you look at it. The title probably doesn’t do much to alter your perception. I use the title only because competitions required I title it, and when selling it buyers seem to expect there to be a title.

The second example may be different. There may be some ambiguity in recognizing what you are looking at. The image is somewhat abstract. However, I would think that in many cases, the title may have helped in creating a context (yes, its glass) and the “poetic” bent to the title may have also provided some additional interest.

Cups


Trees of the Glass Moon