On Feb 16, 2007, at 11:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The OED is fine. However, in practice a title usually suggests a > theme and adds meaning. A caption merely identifies. As a magazine > and advertising writer, I work with both. They're two different > animals.
I think the fine point of our disagreement is that I find, in the absence of a formal title, the presence of a caption makes it the title, Paul. Example: Photo A "House on Houston Street, 1867" - title "A house on Houston Street in New York City, circa 1867." - caption Photo B "Storefront on Houston Street, New York City, circa 1903." - caption used as title People looking at the two will refer to them as "that picture of the house" and "that picture of the storefront". Any difference between the two titles is a semantic distinction only. Of course, a third example: Photo C "Essence" - title "Swirling waters over the lichen covered rocks produce unusual sweet smelling mists in the usually sulphurous hot springs of Yellowstone National Park." - caption Shows how a title can differ from a caption. ;-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
