Giving Your Photographs titles. Why ?
Back in my camera club days in the 1970s - mid 90s, all entries to the camera club competitions required a title to be given to each photograph. Judges and Competition Secretaries liked this apparently and it was therefore seen as necessary. Against my better judgement, I too had to comply. I disliked doing this then and still do to this day.
Sitting through judging sessions on a club night I couldn’t help thinking that there are almost certainly situations where some photographers think up a snazzy title and go out to take a photograph to fit the schemed up title. There were also the pretentious contingent who couldnt resist using Latin titles in natural history shots. Titles like “Danaus plexippus resting on Tagetes”. What’s that all about ? Did you think it would get you more points ?
For all of my original negatives/file names I use a very simple notation as follows. The location, shot number, date. So in my library you will see for example “London-1-210821”. On the odd ocassion I may add something like “hi-res” or “B+W” to differentiate similar files but that’s it. No need for cringe worthy titles that can infact, for me, demean the content of the photograph.
I see lots of photographs on-line every week and I try not to read any titles they may have before I look at the image. The photograph must always come first and speak for itself. Sometimes when I do then read the title I cringe and wonder, why ? I just think it is totally unnecessary and adds nothing to the hard work the photographer may have put in to display the image.
I was sitting in a hotel room a few weeks ago and was flicking through the channels on the TV when I came across the programme “Catchphrase”. If you are not familiar with it, the format is that the contestants are shown an image and they have to guess the well known phrase or saying that fits the image.
