Should a photograph have a title? (Page 3): He's not talking about the name of the image file. He was referring to physically having a title display above or underneath the photograph...

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

fishmaven wrote:

A photo needs a title in your files so that you ca... (show quote)

He's not talking about the name of the image file. He was referring to physically having a title display above or underneath the photograph when viewed.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

Bill_de wrote:

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.

--

I agree 100% that a title is not needed for a photo that stands on its own. But, sometimes the viewer wants a little more information. For example, a travel photo may easily stand on its own as a beautiful work of art, but the viewer may be left with questions such as where the picture was taken. A title can answer that type of question without distracting from the photograph's visual impact.

Therefore, my answer to the original question is that titles may be used, but the photograph should always aesthetically stand on its own unless it was taken purely for illustrative purposes such as showing parts of a step by step process or other non-artistic purposes.

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

AzPicLady wrote:

As usual, I totally disagree with most of you. Wh... (show quote)

Agreed...painters title their works, why not photographers? I think it (a title) adds insight on many levels, not only to the photo, but to the artist and, perhaps, conditions surrounding the work. It's not a question of a title adding to the quality of the image, IMO, but, instead, adding to the performance! Here's one I had on display at the Huntington Beach Art Center's latest show, titled "unIoN stAti0n" (I hope the color rendering is better than what I'm looking at, lol...)

tommystrat Loc: Bigfork, Montana

I like titles in certain situations, as I think they can add expression and insight to the idea and feeling the photographer is trying to convey. Yes, the image must stand on its own, first and foremost. The attached is entitled "Shotgun Shack." Yes, I'm sure folks know what the image is portraying. But adding the title, with the attendant "feeling" that the phrase imparts, I believe adds to the emotion and expands the context of the shot. To each his (or her) own, but I see value in titled as well as untitled works. However, I NEVER print the title on the actual image - I hold that to be unnecessary and distracting. And I only use watermarks on images I am posting online, for obvious reasons. I remove them whenever I print the images.

rbmitch123

I like to give my photos titles. Sometimes I ask myself why is this photo compelling. The answer is often the title.
A pier at sunrise could be title Pier. But the compelling aspect is Sunrise. I would pick Sunrise as my title.

James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)

I do not usually "Title" my Prints that I will put up for sale. I let Others, friends or family, name them. When I post I just write what it is, or where it is. Most, if not all galleries "require" a title. So I get the help of others to title all of the prints that will go into a showing.

So, no - Any art really does not have to be titled as it may have a different meaning to any and everyone who views it. Unless the gallery requires this.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

James R wrote:

I do not usually "Title" my Prints that I will put up for sale. I let Others, friends or family, name them. When I post I just write what it is, or where it is. Most, if not all galleries "require" a title. So I get the help of others to title all of the prints that will go into a showing.

So, no - Any art really does not have to be titled as it may have a different meaning to any and everyone who views it. Unless the gallery requires this.

Interesting idea. I’ve never done that, but for kicks and giggles, I may try that sometime. It would be interesting to see what others come up with.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

Howard5252 wrote:

Many years ago I belonged to a club that used judg... (show quote)

it doesn't make the picture any different but does tell the viewer about the "story". Much prefer title especially in a showing.

BlueMorel Loc: Southwest Michigan

James R wrote:

I do not usually "Title" my Prints that I will put up for sale. I let Others, friends or family, name them. When I post I just write what it is, or where it is. Most, if not all galleries "require" a title. So I get the help of others to title all of the prints that will go into a showing.

So, no - Any art really does not have to be titled as it may have a different meaning to any and everyone who views it. Unless the gallery requires this.

I like creating titles for most of my photos I display online or in print. It is part of my creative process. I looked up and saw this on my TV screen, took a quick pic, and named it "Art Happens". Something about it made me think of abstract art though it's a famiiar sight to those of us who occasionally have poor reception on our new HD TV's. In some ways, the explanation is the title, with my title the afterthought. The photo won't win any awards, but it makes a fun screen saver.

(Download)

bfstuff

The title should not influence the decision on whether or not it is a good photograph. Photos entered in competition should have titles, but the title should not be known to the judges until after the judging. (Just my two cents.)

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Leicaflex wrote:

A title to a photograph will not alter or improve the image at all.

I don't agree. A title has the potential to influence or clarify the meaning of an image, which then could make the message of the image more effective. A clever combination of words and imagery can be very powerful.

carl hervol Loc: jacksonville florida

I see no title

Properframe Loc: US Virginia

I will play devils advocate and take the alternative view. I have a large format book of Ansel Adams prints. It may have been the publishers prerogative, as Ansel can no longer object, but every page has a title. The title is strictly the location of the scene.
For gallery/website sale purposes it is quite often useful to have a catchy title to grab the customers emotions and make them feel an attachment to the photo. Analagous to the question "Does a jingle in a commercial make any product better?" Realistically your title makes no difference to the technical aspects of the photo. But with juried shows, public taste etc. being remembered at crunch time is valuable. Now to another photographer it has minimal value and even negative value as it is distracting. I really only want to see the metadata specs.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I'm guessing every worthwhile image will get a title sooner or later .... because we need some way of referring to it. For example, news images don't normally get titles, but say 'Napalm Girl' and almost everyone will think of Nick Ut's picture.

louparker Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

mwsilvers wrote:

To me, in the first image the golfer just missed m... (show quote)

As a golfer, I have to disagree with your impression that the golfer missed the putt. I assumed that he made it -- it's kind of the glass half empty vs. the glass half full thing. However, to avoid any ambiguity, assuming that he made the putt plus the fact that it appears that he putted from the fringe which shows in the photo, a better title would have been something like "Saving Par" (if it was a par putt), or "Birdie Time" (if that was the case). However, I do agree that titles other than descriptive captions should be used sparingly and not just to be cute. Most of the time the only title I use is descriptive, like Ansel Adams did to inform the viewer about the subject matter of the photo (if it's not obvious), e.g., the type of bird or flower, etc., and/or where the photo was taken if relevant or unique.