Bobk12

I have used the “town, state”, something clever or just my name that they do cover up for the judging as a title. Once a judge did say he was confused by the title “Chasing Passion” until he noticed the sailboat we were behind in the race in the picture was named “Passion”. It won the category.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I don't see the need for a title. The fact that you have to think up something clever shows that it's an afterthought. The competition should be about the image, not the title. If the photo doesn't get the attention of the judges, then they'll move on to one that does. I'd hate to think a photo would win because it had a clever title.

However, if the purpose of the title is to indicate the subject or the location, that's different - just information.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

This is developing as an interesting discussion. There are several elements, which always makes things interesting. One is that many of same pressures and shortcomings appear with of titles assigned to photogrs that appear with titles applied to posts on this forum. Titles should be descriptive, representative, or at least representationally related to photographs. Efforts at being "cute" occasionally work, but many times backfire and sometimes flame out completely.

Judges in reality are pretty much like the rest of us. They occasionally miss our point entirely. We enter contests seeking validation for our pgotography. In reality, this happens when our photograph wins, or at least receives a ribbon. Comments fade very quickly, especially positive ones. So a competitive contest will always have more entries than can be val8dated. (And some of us just really aren't that good yet...at least not consistently.)

In fact, if you think about it art contests in general, and I think photography contests in particular, are at least somewhat oxymoronic. If we really believe what gets written here quite a lot, what does it matter what someone else says they think about our photographs? In any case, why should we hang our hats on their words? A lot of images posted here are of limited interest to me. Quite a few seem to just not be very goid. Does that matter? Not really, because the photographer obviously liked them well enough to post. Nothing is to be served by my expressing my dislikes or my interpretations of their shortcomings.

So I find myself entering fewer contests these days. Especially contests in which someone has told me what to photograph or what to imterpret. My enjoyment at being a reasonably competent photographer making images that those closest to me enjoy is sufficient.

I wish the contest enterers well. Just be aware that they don't solve everything about your photography.

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

I have seen titles win for images in competitions. Titles often help sell images. Have others come up with some suggestions. My wife actually does mine, she is quite good at it.

drjuice

On the whole, I nearly always prefer identification of species mainly because very often my main question is what is that bird, flower, seaweed, tree, or whatever because I'm curious. And, because I spent sooooooo many years just looking at my parents' newly arrived NatGeo and wound up as what one of my friends calls a "trained geographer", I just as often ask WHERE is that? Often, once my curiosity is satisfied, I still look at/admire/wish I'd taken the subject picture. But, probably 40 to 50 percent of the time, I just want to look at the pictures to see how different people approach the same category of subject.

So, for me, I'd often like to see both.

drjuice

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

So abstract art need not apply. Probably why I keep my photographs to my self and judged on if it makes me happy and compared to some of the master photographers I like via the portfolios and gallery images I have seen. I have only gotten one bell pepper I like in 44 years of trying. Weston had that figured out.

photoman43

My answer is "Yes" a title is needed and needs to match the image. And the image has to have impact or a message of its own independent of its title.

Many club rules require that an image, especially a Nature image be "identifiable."

Not all clubs have rules about titles being read aloud and those that do the rules may vary. If a title is read aloud before the score is recorder, a poor title like "rose 24" create a negative impression vs a title like "blood red rose". Judging is subjective and you need to use it to your advantage with a good image title.

If the image is a Nature image, then the title is often used to tell the viewers and judges that the subject is "wild" or not captive as Nature images may be limited to non captive subject and things found only in wild or natural habitats. This can be very important for flower images like passion flowers that many assume are cultivated (and not nature) vs passion flowers found in natural habitats.

I am a member of two camera clubs and have judged images for years. Titles are usually read aloud after the image is displayed and judged. I am not sure if this is just a practice or part of formal competition guidelines.

anotherview Loc: California

Per this opinion: "In my mind, absent at least a title, the only meaningful comments a judge could make would be on the technical merits of the work, since he could have no idea of intent or situation."

As a general rule, a photograph should stand alone and speak for itself -- thus, strictly speaking, not needing a title.

On the other hand, a descriptive title can put the photograph in an objective context. For example, the title of a recent photograph of a man and a woman dining in a New York City restaurant might read: "Couple Dining in Restaurant," New York City: 2015. This barebones description could orient a viewer to both setting and main subject. The perception of the viewer then activates from that standpoint.

In turn, the viewer knows the situation explicitly, and further, an intelligent discussion could identify the intention of the photographer.

An argument exists also from the graphic aspect of a photograph. Our human perception involuntarily responds on a basic level to the graphic makeup of a photograph. Knowing so, a photographer will want to examine his photograph for its graphic character as an independent variable. Matching the main subject to its supporting graphic quality will enhance the viewing experience of the photograph.

That said, I agree a title for a photograph helps both contest judge and a viewer better to understand the presented artwork.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Good question.
Show judges- those folks who judge images shown in shows/ are of three minds:
Some make a point of ignoring titles so the the image can be interpreted solely on its own merits — basically on impact, composition, and technical accomplishment.

Others read the title first to detect possible cues to the artist’s intent as aid to viewing the image.

And yet others read the title last to help determine if the artist’s intent was actually fulfilled.

Three very different judging perspectives that may argue for or against titling.

Dave

bcrawf

If the objective in judging the photos is to rate the technical and aesthetic quality, a title is just noise. In a photo club setting, perhaps a technical rating should be given as distinct from a rating of aesthetic quality, though that can be insulting.

Judy795

In our local, the clubs’ competition makes a big deal of titles and since I am a writer, I love that part of it. I think sometimes my titles(usually 2-4 words) makes the difference between ribbon or no ribbon.
Other organizations photo competitions that I’ve entered didn’t want titles at all so the playing field is different.

goldenyears Loc: Lake Osewgo

The small photography club I belong to draws it's membership entirely from the 700+ residents of a retirement community. Some club members are accomplished photographers and others, like me, amateurs. Some of the photos are shot with expensive cameras, others with an iPad or even a cell phone. Some have been post-processed and others not. Comments about the photographs are carefully constructive, with the purpose of helping everyone improve.

On even months we meet to look at member's general submissions. On odd months we meet to look at member's submissions to a "challenge", "Patterns" for instance. Photos are displayed continuously in a slideshow on a big screen TV in the "Social Lounge." The residents want to know about the photos, so they are labeled with subject and photographer's name. So, for that reason image titles are provided.

One of my "Patterns" photos is shown here in a screenshot from a slideshow. I would not submit it for competition, but let's say I did. Is the title "Granite Slabs" useful, superfluous, or undesirable?

Bobk12

Fantastic! Thanks for your input.

anotherview Loc: California

This shot is one of those that have no main subject but instead (usually) a generality which in turn requires a descriptor for it to guide the viewer.

Here, the title "Granite Slabs" offers a connection between the subject and the viewer that confuses (at least in my case) because intuitively (or by experience), the word "slabs" suggests a horizontal stacking, not a vertical arrangement. A title with more information might help the viewer to make quick sense of the subject.

Again, I posit that a photograph should stand alone and speak for itself. But obviously a given photograph may not clearly self-describe its content for the apprehension of human perception. In reality, as we all know, a scene may momentarily mislead or otherwise confuse our perception. The same goes for a photograph devoid of ready visual clues in its presentation.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Just go with the rules of each club. When you use titles keep them to a few words, and don't try to get clever.