Interesting... I tend to think that the title is trying to explain what the picture itself doesn't clearly explains. Also, a 'no title' title sounds like a bit pretentious to me.
What I like to see in an exhibition is information like place, time... (and yes, sometimes I would like to know the equipment used...). Depending on the kind of picture, the viewer may need some information to fully understand the context (social, historical,...) of the image. But IMHO, this is not the title. Regards, Jaume ----- Mensaje original ---- De: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> Enviado: viernes, 16 de febrero, 2007 6:21:58 Asunto: Let's talk about titles 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net ______________________________________________ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
