Bob, I must tell that I am half with you and half against you (is there
a single word that describes this kind of opinion?)
> 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.
You see, sometimes I would want to tell a story both in words and in
images. Then I would try to pick up a title (not caption) so that indeed
the viewer will be directed somehow. If you will, you can call this
multi media presentation where image is primary and words are secondary
though important.
However, as of recently I find it extremely convenient to have to
produce an image every week. Then I can "escape" having to give my
images title by just giving it essentially a cardinal number of the
respective week of the year.
It is just that sometimes there is serious dissonance between the title
and the way I perceive the image. This is when I feel like the author
would be better not giving any title at all. Tom C, please notice that
this paragraph has nothing to do with you ;-).
Boris
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
