Not much to debate as we seem to be in 'almost agreement' ... > 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.
Exactly the point of my example number three ... >> ... 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 > 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. A gallery exhibition is the equivalent to display of individual photos on a website for critique/appreciation, Paul. No one here is writing captions like one might for National Geographic or Automobiles Today magazine. As said in an earlier comment, 'a caption can be a title, but a title does not necessarily have to be a caption'. Indeed, as example number three shows, the caption in that kind of instance cannot really be considered a title at all. But a picture presented with just that caption wouldn't usually be found posted that way on the web or hung in an exhibition for critique/appreciation purposes. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
