Godfrey, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > Didn't we have this discussion in the recent past? It is an > interesting discussion and bears revisiting now and again anyway.
We might have. Yet I've found that a bit of photographic discussion would lighten the mood somewhat. > Titles change the interpretation of a photograph. They present > meaningful context that changes how the photo is perceived. That > said, for sake of putting photographs on display at an exhibition or > for sale, they must be titled somehow ... whether you use "This > Photograph Intentionally Untitled #00201" or "Rose In Garden", you > must put a title on each piece. Each of those titles will guide a > viewers thinking, whether you like it or not. The generic "Untitled" > itself is a statement when applied to a piece of work. But isn't it sometimes a case that a photograph displayed (and/or for sale) has "No Title" or "Untitled" printed/written by its side? > My general rule is to try to keep it simple and leave the viewer's > appreciation neutral. Of course, now and again I like to have some > fun so I enjoyed putting titles on the "Window People" set which show > up on each photo in the set as it is displayed: > > http://www.gdgphoto.com/windowpeople/ > > So far, based on the responses I've gotten, this last has produced > the desired effect ... and people are enjoying it. ;-) In fact, I think that it would be an interesting experiment to take a picture and post it to several photographic communities with different titles and/or without a title at all, asking the viewer to describe their perception of the photo. I've started catching myself more and more often ignoring the title of the photograph all together. I would look at the photo, get my own opinion about it, and only then look at the title. Cheers. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
