I've been having a pretty hard time coming up with creative/interesting names for my landscape shots. I just can't seem to come up with anything that makes me happy. I will admit that being creative with words is not a talent of mine, and maybe that has something to do with it.
Anyways, if some of you are willing to share, I'd really like to try and understand some of the thought processes you through when coming up with titles for your shots.
An Oak tree is a tower of intertwining strength, the power girth of nature. The Grand Canyon is the valley of height and formation (and I've never even seen it), the ancient river causeways with towers of brown and red.
I just spin a wheel with lots of words on it.
Seriously, Alex, i personally think the title can be a good attention grabber and even can enhance the photo at times, so your question is a good one. Here's a few suggestions, give it a try sometime: 1) Think about the primary message that you are trying to convey, and how you would express that emotion/thought/view in a few words. 2) If the photo can symbolize something, or act as a metaphor for something else, think of the associations that can be drawn from the shot; for example, a rock formation might remind you of an animal, so title it as such. 3) Think of something that distinguishes the particular shot from all other scenes, an identifying characteristic or even style, and use that for a title. Maybe you can relate a specific experience you had in actually getting the shot, some unique anecdote, summed up in a few words. Im sure i can think of many others, and everyone has their own methods, just let it flow from you the way you try to let your photography flow. And i highly recommend lots of participation in the critique galleries, that will get your writing juices going!
Depends. Run of the mill stuff gets literal treatment, but the good stuff gets a study. Get into the photo. How does it make you feel? Why? Get the emotions you feel into the title. We strive for people to respond to our photos, and I have no qualms about giving them a hint or a starting point in the emotions I hope they'll feel. Not coincidentally emotion sells, and the more your viewers can feel, the more they're going to buy.
Place the image in front of you and focus on what it is saying. An old barn from the turn of the century "Living History",,,An old cabin with a door ajar "Doorway to the Past". Titles will come as you concentrate. Look in Art Magazines at the local Barnes & Noble for what others have come up with. Keep a list of potential names as you think of them. Emotion as Hank says does sell. Don't be surprised when you come up with what you think is a unique title that it doesn't show up somewhere else.
Most of the master photographers of the last century never made up creative titles for their work, they let the work speak for itself. When a museum ask Edward Weston to come up with more "creative" titles for his work, he gathered a group of friends, a few bottles of wine and had a great time making things up, ironically, many of the viewers took the titles seriously.
Unfortunately, our society is obsessed with other people's lives, especially the lives of artist, they want to be told what the artist felt, instead of looking deeply at the work. Don't feed their fire, make them search your work, find their own meaning.
I think sometimes the titles given to photos are sappy. But that's just a matter of taste, I suppose.
I recently ran up against this problem when I entered three photos in a show and they wanted titles for them, right there on the spot. It can be hard to think of a title that's creative, clever, and appropriate.
St. Ansel's pictures have titles, often just the place name and maybe the year. They always seem appropriate and not sappy. Sorry, Alex, I can't give you any good advice on how to think up good titles for pictures.
Thank you all for being so kind to give me a bit of direction here. From what you all have said so far, there seem to be two different ways of going about this. One would be to simply title the photo according to what it is, and the other would be to come up with a mouthful of words that would convey my thoughts to the viewer. So far, I've been doing a bit of both without really realizing it.
When I first posted this, I thought I wasn't satisfied because I couldn't come up with enough creative names, but now I understand that I just didn't look at it the right way. I agree with the thought that the work should speak for itself. However, I CAN see some instances in which I think clever wording would make for a good title. What I've gathered from this is that I should simply continue to do what feels natural to me and stop worrying too much about how creative my names are (or aren't.)
This thread has been of great help to me and I look forward to seeing what anybody else may have to say about this matter.
take my words with the salt of a (presently) infrequent poster.
catchy titles for every little photo smack of camera-clubism-itis. Overly flowery art-speak titles just plain wreak - or should I say that, "the breath of the goddess mother in dawns fragrant first light smells like garlic fried anchovies with caviar stuffed pickles".
Of all the photos I've taken, I've really only given "names" to less than a small handful, and for whatever reason - those names just came to me like a beam of golden light through the tempest clouds of Apollo's wrath... oh wait, drat; there I go again. But seriously, the name called out to be matched to the image so I went with it - but again, were talking a half dozen times out of tens of thousands. The last one I simply called, Native Spirit.
Other than that, I'm completely with Richard; just call it what it is, "Golden light at sunrise from the North Rim of the Grand Canyon" or North Rim Sunrise, or Golden Grand Canyon Sunrise. It doesn't need to be hard, and it certainly doesn't need to be overly embellished with any artificial art speak.
I don't get too hung up on names. In fact, I tend to change my mind frequently about what I call individual images. Usually, it's just the name of the location or a descriptive title based on the main subject. If the picture doesn't grab the viewer then a catchy title certainly won't make any difference.
Gary, I am totally with you in that thought. I do not see much benefit in naming a photograph with a mouthful of "flowery art-speak." I think that if a name is obvious to me, and not overly sappy, I have no problem with naming it that. Also, though, if I have an image that I feel is truly one of my best, I'm not opposed to sitting down and thinking about it, as Stan suggested. It is important to me, to make sure the name isn't too sappy for my taste. Nine times out of ten, in my situation, I believe that it's most appropriate to name a photograph as it is.
I can't explain how much help this thread has been to me. Thank you all for your detailed responses so far!
One other insight worth adding before you give up on naming-
How are your clients going to identify the photo, whether talking to you or to other potential clients? Even if you don't get into the warm and fuzzy side of the art world, if you go past a couple of words it's going to complicate things. For example, how many "Horseshoe Bend" photos do you think are out there, much less in your own files? Google for images and pull up a chair.
Gary gave a good example. I named this image "Doggy style" because that is "what i saw" in a rorshach test kind of way. This was probably the only the 2nd image that I created a special title for.
If your photography is merely documentation, then calling it 'as it is' will suit the purpose. But when photography is no longer a simple frame in time, and has crossed the threshold into carrying symbolic and emotional appeal--then I think a pithy title is mandatory. It will only assist the viewer to better understand the motives and symbolism behind the photograph.
That is a very valid point, and it is really making me take another look at this (for the third time, haha..) I suppose I need to find the right balance between the two methods of naming!
My less than simple answer...
How you name or title a photo depends on the style/subject of your work and most importantly it depends on who your audience is.
Does every photo need to be titled? No.
Does a title help sell photos? Yes.
I've sold several photographs because of a title.
When shooting photojournalism or wildlife I choose to be as factual and scientific as possible.
There are exceptions and that is based on who I plan on marketing the images to.
Landscape and fine art there is a lot of interpretation that can be applied. The question is do you want your viewers to let their imagination take over or do you want to lead them down a certain path with your title?
To your question... if you're forcing a name you're not doing your photographic work or your audience any favors. If something comes to mind and resonates with you then go with it.
Discussion
18 repliesAnyways, if some of you are willing to share, I'd really like to try and understand some of the thought processes you through when coming up with titles for your shots.
Thanks,
-Alex
An Oak tree is a tower of intertwining strength, the power girth of nature. The Grand Canyon is the valley of height and formation (and I've never even seen it), the ancient river causeways with towers of brown and red.
Other than that, a fly is a fly.
Danny.
Seriously, Alex, i personally think the title can be a good attention grabber and even can enhance the photo at times, so your question is a good one. Here's a few suggestions, give it a try sometime: 1) Think about the primary message that you are trying to convey, and how you would express that emotion/thought/view in a few words. 2) If the photo can symbolize something, or act as a metaphor for something else, think of the associations that can be drawn from the shot; for example, a rock formation might remind you of an animal, so title it as such. 3) Think of something that distinguishes the particular shot from all other scenes, an identifying characteristic or even style, and use that for a title. Maybe you can relate a specific experience you had in actually getting the shot, some unique anecdote, summed up in a few words. Im sure i can think of many others, and everyone has their own methods, just let it flow from you the way you try to let your photography flow. And i highly recommend lots of participation in the critique galleries, that will get your writing juices going!
Unfortunately, our society is obsessed with other people's lives, especially the lives of artist, they want to be told what the artist felt, instead of looking deeply at the work. Don't feed their fire, make them search your work, find their own meaning.
I recently ran up against this problem when I entered three photos in a show and they wanted titles for them, right there on the spot. It can be hard to think of a title that's creative, clever, and appropriate.
St. Ansel's pictures have titles, often just the place name and maybe the year. They always seem appropriate and not sappy. Sorry, Alex, I can't give you any good advice on how to think up good titles for pictures.
When I first posted this, I thought I wasn't satisfied because I couldn't come up with enough creative names, but now I understand that I just didn't look at it the right way. I agree with the thought that the work should speak for itself. However, I CAN see some instances in which I think clever wording would make for a good title. What I've gathered from this is that I should simply continue to do what feels natural to me and stop worrying too much about how creative my names are (or aren't.)
This thread has been of great help to me and I look forward to seeing what anybody else may have to say about this matter.
take my words with the salt of a (presently) infrequent poster.
catchy titles for every little photo smack of camera-clubism-itis. Overly flowery art-speak titles just plain wreak - or should I say that, "the breath of the goddess mother in dawns fragrant first light smells like garlic fried anchovies with caviar stuffed pickles".
Of all the photos I've taken, I've really only given "names" to less than a small handful, and for whatever reason - those names just came to me like a beam of golden light through the tempest clouds of Apollo's wrath... oh wait, drat; there I go again. But seriously, the name called out to be matched to the image so I went with it - but again, were talking a half dozen times out of tens of thousands. The last one I simply called, Native Spirit.
Other than that, I'm completely with Richard; just call it what it is, "Golden light at sunrise from the North Rim of the Grand Canyon" or North Rim Sunrise, or Golden Grand Canyon Sunrise. It doesn't need to be hard, and it certainly doesn't need to be overly embellished with any artificial art speak.
my one cent
I can't explain how much help this thread has been to me. Thank you all for your detailed responses so far!
How are your clients going to identify the photo, whether talking to you or to other potential clients? Even if you don't get into the warm and fuzzy side of the art world, if you go past a couple of words it's going to complicate things. For example, how many "Horseshoe Bend" photos do you think are out there, much less in your own files? Google for images and pull up a chair.
Nathan
That is a very valid point, and it is really making me take another look at this (for the third time, haha..) I suppose I need to find the right balance between the two methods of naming!
How you name or title a photo depends on the style/subject of your work and most importantly it depends on who your audience is.
Does every photo need to be titled? No.
Does a title help sell photos? Yes.
I've sold several photographs because of a title.
When shooting photojournalism or wildlife I choose to be as factual and scientific as possible.
There are exceptions and that is based on who I plan on marketing the images to.
Landscape and fine art there is a lot of interpretation that can be applied. The question is do you want your viewers to let their imagination take over or do you want to lead them down a certain path with your title?
To your question... if you're forcing a name you're not doing your photographic work or your audience any favors. If something comes to mind and resonates with you then go with it.