A rose by any other name...

How important is the title of an image? Is it a crutch for a bad image or a bonus for a good one?

Example: The following image on it's own...

Attachment 6095









Or now with a title:
Missing the Action
Attachment 6095

Comments?

I vote 'bonus for a good image'

I quite like this one but the title helps us to see what you saw. The funny part is, who's missing the action- the woman for not seeing what the photographer sees or the photographer for not seeing the girl?

:thumbup:

I think a title can be both depending on the image.

In this case I think it helps <insert what Bambi said here>

It's a cool image.

Is this yours Iggy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Aussie

I think a title can be both depending on the image.

In this case I think it helps <insert what Bambi said here>

It's a cool image.

Is this yours Iggy?

---

Yes, it is, thanks. I would never post someone else's stuff unless there was a heavy disclaimer and a crazy reason for not simply linking to it.

I like it.

Any other opinions?

Sometimes this definitely goes both ways.

If the image is good, the title can be a bonus.

If the image is marginal, the title can make it much better.

Sometimes, the image is great, and the title deserves more thought.

Really, I hesitate to title images. Often, my images are left without a title. If you look at my flickr account, few of them have titles unless I really feel they deserve one, or it gives an explanation to the image.

Honestly, I prefer this image without the title. The title is quite ingenious though. Makes you question who is missing the action. The photographer missing the action of the person walking by him? Or the girl walking by the photographer not taking any notice to what he is photographing?

I think titles give us words to help define a photograph and can make the scope of the photograph too narrow. Even now, I loved that photograph, but now am lost as to what I originally thought about the image after I read the title...............