Titles and Dreams

Roger Hicks said:
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.
Click to expand...

If I go to an exhibit, I would need to remember all the titles because the handful of images that were important to me might not be the handful of images that were important to the persons with whom I am discussing the exhibit, and I would want to know which ones they were talking about.
 
Roger Hicks said:
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?
Click to expand...
Great. I am going to write an article about HCB and give myself all the image credits, because that is where THE ARTICLE comes from.

Roger Hicks said:
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.
Click to expand...
So now I need to Google the titles to know what they mean. So much for easy memorability. What kind of mannequin leg is in your picture? Maybe it is a Hans Boodt or a Bernstein or a Mader? There's your title: "The Mader Leg and All the Rest". Now everyone can Google "Mader" to see what you are getting at.

And why is it always when someone disagrees with you, such person is being merely argumentative? I just happen to disagree with a lot of what you have to say, and offer a different opinion. And I am not even going to touch your article on dreams.
 
ptpdprinter said:
Great. I am going to write an article about HCB and give myself all the image credits.

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.
Click to expand...
So now I need to Google the titles to know what they mean. So much for easy memorability.[/QUOTE]
I refer you to the previous post. Paragraph 1, remember? "The Pucci chair and all the rest, by Nancy Baron". Which bit did you not understand?

You don't find the title memorable? You've no desire to learn something new, or even to work it out from context, i.e. that there might be a particular kind of chair in the picture, perhaps designed or made by someone named Pucci? OK: your loss. Not Ralph Pucci's. Not Nancy Baron's. Not mine.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
That's not fair. Sometimes they're just ignorant. Sometimes proudly so. Time to hit the ignore button, I think.
Click to expand...
So now when someone disagrees with you and offers a different opinion, not only are they being merely argumentative, they are also ignorant. More ad hominem. What an ego!
 
I hope I've got better at titles over the years. As much as I do love puns, I have made an effort to resist using those as titles.

But, after reading your article, Roger, and this thread, I think I may need to give more thought to my titling.

I have mostly used simple descriptives as titles but to any one else , I suspect they are not very helpful.
"Waiting for Water" doesn't tell you anything about what that photo is. And while "Waiting for Spring" might be better, that still isn't especially descriptive of what the photo actually is.

And, I have not included the photo itself here: most people reading the titles will have some image in their minds about the photo--I suppose a few may remember it--but, I suspect, that idea is not anything close to what I shot.

So, a better title for that might be some variation of "Boats Hanging for Winter Storage."
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rob_biemer/4586533496/in/dateposted/

Which all leads me to the idea that titles and photos ought to reinforce each other.

Now I just need to work out how I'm going to apply that idea to my photos.

Rob
 
rbiemer said:
I hope I've got better at titles over the years. As much as I do love puns, I have made an effort to resist using those as titles.

But, after reading your article, Roger, and this thread, I think I may need to give more thought to my titling.

I have mostly used simple descriptives as titles but to any one else , I suspect they are not very helpful.
"Waiting for Water" doesn't tell you anything about what that photo is. And while "Waiting for Spring" might be better, that still isn't especially descriptive of what the photo actually is.

And, I have not included the photo itself here: most people reading the titles will have some image in their minds about the photo--I suppose a few may remember it--but, I suspect, that idea is not anything close to what I shot.

So, a better title for that might be some variation of "Boats Hanging for Winter Storage."
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rob_biemer/4586533496/in/dateposted/

Which all leads me to the idea that titles and photos ought to reinforce each other.

Now I just need to work out how I'm going to apply that idea to my photos.

Rob
Click to expand...
Dear Rob,

Yeah, that's pretty much it. As is the point about the meaningfulness (and usefulness) of the title to others. And of course puns!

THINK is the magic word. As I say, there's no "one size fits all".

Cheers,

R.
 
rbiemer said:
As much as I do love puns, I have made an effort to resist using those as titles.
Click to expand...

I'm not much of a photographer so yeah, I do mostly puns or just pretentious artsy titles :eek:

If I'd ever properly exhibit anything... I'd probably still do it :D
 
I must say that almost all the responses in this thread are more amusing than my first impulse at responding, which is that I don't ordinarily give my pictures titles. But then again, my favorites are portraits of people I know, which is interpretive, of course, but not in a way that lends itself to choosing a title. "John Smith, December 1985" kind of sums it up. Then again, the particular pleasure of all this activity, for me, is less "Art" for those "out there" and more the perversity of seeing what 30 years has done to a person . . . I provide a certain technical competence. But it is time and tide that is doing the work here.

Interesting question Roger. As always, it is a pleasure to sip from the pot you have stirred!

Ben
 
Roger Hicks said:
Two new pieces on my .eu site: one photographic, about choosing titles for pictures, and the other more philosophical, about the nature of dreams.

What are your thoughts on titles? And indeed dreams?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Other than factually labeling a photo to document content
such as "New York City Skyline 1938"

giving titles to photographs makes no more sense to me
than giving titles to strangers you pass on the street.

A photo stands or falls on its own in the eyes of the viewer,
winning with some and losing with others.

If a photographer feels the need to label their pics beyond factual content,
its usually a sign to me that they have failed as a photographer.

Stephen
 
Some years ago when I was still selling framed photos in exhibits, I would be asked to place a title on each photo. This may be due to having most artists using oils and watercolors, and having titles seems to be part of the final product for them. I recall having many photos with the title "Pensacola Beach Sunset" .... I had a good laugh one evening when two people inspecting my framed photos at an exhibit commented on the "beautiful calligraphy". They meant my scribbled signature with a marker!
 
I would prefer not to see things so Black and White.... such stern rules ;)

When it works it Works... when it does not, oh well
 
For works of fine art / conceptual photography, a more elaborate title is often more than fitting, I find. And even when it isn't, it's not hard to look past the title.
 
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

A poet titles the poem. A song writer titles the song. A painter titles the painting. A sculpter titles the sculpt. So on and so forth...

If a photographer is an artist then whatever the photographer wants to do in relations to the photograph is up to the artist. Give it a title, give it a number, give it a nothing; give it a chance at being remembered as something worth remembering.

All I am saying is give it a break - or at least, give some wine a try; preferable a red wine, perhaps a good cheap one with great taste and a title.
 
Another question to ask is: in actual practice, when do you title your images? Do you title your images when you edit them, when you print them, when you mount or frame them, when you post them on the web or show them to friends, or when you exhibit them is a show?
 
Another, question. When do you read the title? I would never read the title first, so the first 'reading' of the picture is without the benefit of the title. Even when a picture is offered with more information, like Chris Crawford's work I take that in AFTER I've taken in the image.

Joe
 
ptpdprinter said:
Another question to ask is: in actual practice, when do you title your images? Do you title your images when you edit them, when you print them, when you mount or frame them, when you post them on the web or show them to friends, or when you exhibit them is a show?
Click to expand...
Often before I take them, though many of my photographs are deliberately named "Untitled" since they will be part of series - and it's the series that needs a name not the images in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top