>
> Hi!
>
> My recent question to Tom C and his response provoked a topic for
> discussion. Unless you object of course ;-).
>
> Do you think that truly excellent photographs require no
> title? Do you
> think that sometimes giving a "No Title" will actually be
> good for the
> photograph and the viewer?
>
> What do you say?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Boris
Titles are either cloyingly twee and sentimental, or they are the
photographer's way of telling you what to think, or both.
Photos don't need titles, they need captions: who, what, when, where,
why.
A photographer who uses a title is the unholy spawn of Thomas
('Painter of Light') Kinkade. How can any healthy-minded person read
titles like "Serenity Cove", "Home is Where the Heart Is" or "Amber
Afternoon" without immediately losing their lunch?
Not even Ken Rockwell uses titles.
--
Bob
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
