Roger Hicks
Mentor
Mackinaw
Think Different
Actually, I’ve always enjoyed choosing a title for a picture. I usually try for something witty (at least to me). For example, I photographed a bride-to-be several years back next to an open barn door. The door had a large wooden brace that looked like the letter “Z.” I titled the picture, “The Bride of Zorro.” (perhaps an in-joke for those who grew up in the U.S. in the 1950’s, and recall watching “Zorro” on TV).
Jim B.
Jim B.
kxl
Social Documentary
I prefer to be an invisible artist and let the work speak for itself. If I have to come up with a title, then I prefer the title to be quite literal rather than interpretive, e.g., "Woman holding a child." I'd prefer the viewer to interpret the image through their own experiences.
valdas
Mentor
I agree with the opinion that a photograph should speak for itself. Helping with the title is a bit of a cheating 
Well, I like good titles that help/complement, but to me it's already beyond the photography, we are into different form of art... Which is ok, but I would like to judge the picture based on the merits of what I see, not what I read. But then again - sometimes one need to tell the story where both picture and words are needed...
Well, I like good titles that help/complement, but to me it's already beyond the photography, we are into different form of art... Which is ok, but I would like to judge the picture based on the merits of what I see, not what I read. But then again - sometimes one need to tell the story where both picture and words are needed...ian_watts
Ian Watts
Giving a project a title – even a pretentious one – is fine IMO but I dislike titles for individual photographs that go beyond specifying the location and date or the name of the subject. I particularly loathe "witty" titles which usually strike me as just a desperate attempt to make a pedestrian photograph seem interesting. For the photograph in the article, "Loudun, 2017" seems perfectly appropriate.
RichC
Well-known
I never take single, standalone photographs - all my photographs belong to series. Each series has a title, but the photographs within may be untitled or titled - depending on which adds to what I'm trying to say with the work.
A couple of examples... The first is from my series Digital Archaeology, about technology, consumerism and obsolescence. The photographs are presented on lightboxes, halfway between illuminated adverts and museum artefacts, and each is titled like a museum display. They have titles like "Apple iPhone 4S. Touchscreen smartphone, circa 2011". Also, an artist's statement is pretty much compulsory for contemporary artworks, so all my series have one (though I try to minimise the worst excesses of "art speak" while bearing in mind art critics seeing my work expect that kind of art historical/philosophical/theoretical background).
Gallery view:
The second is from my series Tempus Fugit No. 2: memento mori, reminding us to get on and live life and take chances rather than let time slip away being couch potatoes watching interminable TV. These photographs are untitled, and when hung in a gallery are labelled "Untitled, 2007", etc. This one I've unofficially named "still life"!
A couple of examples... The first is from my series Digital Archaeology, about technology, consumerism and obsolescence. The photographs are presented on lightboxes, halfway between illuminated adverts and museum artefacts, and each is titled like a museum display. They have titles like "Apple iPhone 4S. Touchscreen smartphone, circa 2011". Also, an artist's statement is pretty much compulsory for contemporary artworks, so all my series have one (though I try to minimise the worst excesses of "art speak" while bearing in mind art critics seeing my work expect that kind of art historical/philosophical/theoretical background).
Gallery view:
The second is from my series Tempus Fugit No. 2: memento mori, reminding us to get on and live life and take chances rather than let time slip away being couch potatoes watching interminable TV. These photographs are untitled, and when hung in a gallery are labelled "Untitled, 2007", etc. This one I've unofficially named "still life"!
ptpdprinter
Mentor
I think images should speak for themselves, and therefore I am not keen on giving images titles; but sometimes you are required to for shows, so I grin and bear it, and just give an image an obvious descriptor. I thinks it's mostly gallery driven so they can keep track of inventory and sales, not for some esoteric art reason.
wes loder
Photographer/Historian
First rule of photojournalism: A picture is worth a 1000 words IF accompanied by an informative caption. Some pictures do not need titles; sometimes a place or a person's name is enough; other times a title can enrich the viewing experience. When I see pictures in the gallery without titles, I often just get annoyed because the picture alone raises more questions than it answers. To insist that your pictures should never need a title sounds snobbish. Needs will always vary.
Jack Conrad
Well-known
Why clutter up a perfectly good title with a boring old picture?
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Ian,
Except that I take lots of pictures in Loudun, of many different subjects, in any given year. This means that your suggested title is useless as an identifier: I might as well call it "France, 2017". Or "Somewhere in the world, sometime." Or "Untitled".
This is in many ways the point of the article: being able to identify a picture. Most people don't even know (or care) where Loudun is. Otherwise it's "a picture of somewhere, dunno where, by some bloke whose name I can't remember. It has a plaster leg in it."
I completely agree about "witty" titles, as I said in the piece, which is why I like simple but descriptive titles. Though again as I say in the article, words-and-pictures together can sometimes be interdependent, as in The Secret Life of Chairs.
Addressing a point that others make, indeed, a picture should often "speak for itself" and usually encourage the person looking at it to use their own imagination. But if it's any good it will probably do that anyway: I can't see why an identifier would stop it doing that.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Few would argue with the highlight, though it's important to add that a title also helps with reviews and analyses. If you see lots of pictures, and talk about them or write about them, it's usually quite useful to be able to identify the picture concisely by its title.
Cheers,
R.
ian_watts
Ian Watts
Yes, I understand that but I would ask why you feel that photograph needs an "identifier"? If it's a stock shot it'll presumably have a file name or can be given a catalogue number. If it's a piece of fine art and you feel it absolutely must be identifiable from the title, presumably the most simple descriptive title sufficient to distinguish it from others is sufficient? – e.g. 'Leg, Loudon, 2017'.
Dogman
Mentor
Some titles are so pretentious they detract from the photograph. Some titles are so vague they are usually ignored and forgotten.
Although I admire his work tremendously, Frederick Sommer's titles often make we roll my eyes. The title "Circumnavigation of the Blood" is, at least to me, off-putting yet the photograph itself is, again to me, haunting and memorable.
But if you ask someone to describe William Eggleston's "Greenwood, Mississippi, 1973" you're likely to get only a puzzled look. But say "Red Ceiling" and many would immediately recognize the photograph in question.
Personally, I seldom title photographs other than person, place and date. I prefer to let the viewer mentally entitle the work based on how they see the photograph...if they see anything memorable at all.
Although I admire his work tremendously, Frederick Sommer's titles often make we roll my eyes. The title "Circumnavigation of the Blood" is, at least to me, off-putting yet the photograph itself is, again to me, haunting and memorable.
But if you ask someone to describe William Eggleston's "Greenwood, Mississippi, 1973" you're likely to get only a puzzled look. But say "Red Ceiling" and many would immediately recognize the photograph in question.
Personally, I seldom title photographs other than person, place and date. I prefer to let the viewer mentally entitle the work based on how they see the photograph...if they see anything memorable at all.
michaelwj
----------------
I'm a descriptor and year type of tiltler. I doubt I'll ever have two decent photos of the same thing in one year.
About "humorous" titles, when I used to judge camera club competitions, the "humorous" titled pictures were always the most garish cliched nonsense. After a few images I never looked at the title until after I'd scored the image, sometimes it's hard to seperate a bad title from an otherwise not bad image.
About "humorous" titles, when I used to judge camera club competitions, the "humorous" titled pictures were always the most garish cliched nonsense. After a few images I never looked at the title until after I'd scored the image, sometimes it's hard to seperate a bad title from an otherwise not bad image.
ptpdprinter
Mentor
When you go to a museum or art gallery, do you look for a title to a piece of art? And then when you go to the coffee shop to discuss what you've seen, do you really refer to that piece of art by its title? I guess I've been doing it wrong all these decades, because I just describe the piece. How does it help describing Renoir's painting of a girl with a watering can as "Girl with a Watering Can", or, more to the point, Diane Arbus's photograph of a kid holding a hand grenade as" "Child with Toy Hand Grenade in Central Park"? If I go to a photography exhibit, I'm not going to remember 30-40 titles, especially if they are not descriptive.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Ian,
For the first point, simple memorability: an alphanumeric accession identification means absolutely nothing, whereas a title tells you (or should in my view tell you) something useful about the picture, to help you remember it.
For the second point, we are in fundamental agreement except over one basic consideration: what constitutes "the most simple descriptive title sufficient to distinguish it from others". For me, this IS the title I used. My memory is crowded. "Plaster leg in magazine rack" stimulates a lot more neurons than just "leg"; and I find the date completely irrelevant except for placing a picture by someone else in historical context. I have taken tens of thousands of pictures over the last half century. Many have appeared in books -- others' books as well as my own -- and in magazines, quite apart from on line; and I have had quite a few exhibitions.
Also, I have used many others' pictures in my books and magazine articles. For some years now, I have had a regular weekly column in Amateur Photographer magazine, Final Analysis. Here is an example. For others, Google "Roger Hicks Final Analysis".
In all this, memorable identifiers are invaluable. I do not propose that my ideas will work for everyone: "one size fits all" is normally a recipe for disaster. But if you are serious about your photography, and reasonably competent, the chances are that sooner or later your pictures will fall into the hands of those who use words to describe them. Indeed if they do not, your pictures are quite likely always to remain little known. It is, therefore, rarely a bad idea to furnish your pictures with a unique, memorable, verbal identifier.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Michael,
But it's not just the same year. I've lived just over 10 miles from Loudun for almost 15 years. I really don't care much whether I took a given picture in 2007 or 2015. Why would I? The subject matter, though, is much more important to me.
I completely agree about the regrettable correlation between bad pictures and bad captions, though, and about the way that a bad caption can (and all too often often does) drag down an otherwise competent or even good picture.
Cheers,
R.
ptpdprinter
Mentor
A better title would have been "Green and Gold Living Room"; I wouldn't know a Pucci chair if I was sitting in one. And why is the image credit to Amateur Photographer instead of Nancy Baron?
Roger Hicks
Mentor
The examples you give are comparatively easy to describe. Do I look for a title? Rarely. Do I remember it if I see it? Usually. Do the best titles normally fit the subject well? Pretty much invariably.
Your "I guess I've been doing it wrong all these decades" is a classic example of defensive "one size fits all" thinking. You've been doing it right for you. Fine. You've been doing it wrong for me. Whether that's your problem or mine depends on how we're discussing things.
Also, I'd have thought that most of us wouldn't need to remember 30-40 titles. We'd remember the pictures (and the titles) that are important to us: usually, a handful.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Highlight: Because that's where THE ARTICLE came from. Did you not notice the very first paragraph in the link? Or are you so determined to argue that you ignore anything that does not suit you?
And no, that wouldn't have been a better title. It might have suited you better because you can't be bothered to learn what a Pucci chair is. I didn't know either. So I Googled it. I am more interested in learning than I am in trying to demonstrate my ignorance.
Cheers,
R.