This isn't really worthy of further debate, but I'll make one more attempt at explaining the distinction. Consider a magazine photo caption for example. I've written some that were 100 words long. This is particularly true when the photo is used more to illustrate a complex element. That's quite common in some pubs. You would never think of that as a title. However, in the case of a gallery show, you're correct in saying that any set of words one might ascribe to a particular photo could be considered a title, whether it's explanatory or thematic. Paul -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
