Obviously I could have put the subject elements in the title, like window, wall, gutter and weed, but then this would have directed the viewers thoughts instead of giving them freedom to roam. Tyler Monson refuses to add titles since I follow his blog, and honestly, I don’t miss the titles too much. Martina from blackandwhitecolours.de does the contrary: she combines quotations and photographs for an enhancing effect, while Juha uses lines from contemporary poems for his post titles. So is there a golden rule? Most probably not, so I will continue to struggle titles for my posts and sometimes be lucky and other times without an idea. As long as there is an image worth looking at, that shouldn’t be a problem, neither for the reader nor the author.
For me the title either comes first, giving rise to the content, or last. More often the former. But then again, in hardly what you’d call prolific so it doesn’t mean much.
I am somewhat ambivalent regarding titles. What you do is often photography with a small essay, and in that case the title is definitely important.
But even with “pure photography” titles can do both – enhance the viewing experience or narrow it down, pre-determining paths of thought. The latter I clearly want to avoid, the former indeed is difficult.
For me it’s picture first, everything else second. I go straight to the image, then read title and any other stuff. But I like this, it’s funny because it looks like a face. This is a picture that will make you smile.
Admittedly I sometimes get stuck with titles, not being able to immediately clear my thoughts.
Re. the image: there’s clearly that element of humour in it, but it also fits my preferences for un-vivid colours. Glad you like it!
Never thought the title was important. It is all about the photo. A title is a way of keeping track of posts. Round windows are compelling here.
Jeff, you certainly manage to concentrate on the essence, which is something I fail to do sometimes.
You’re right. Sometimes I belabor the obvious when I should not. Tony is correct about it looking a bit like a face, and with a fine sense of humor.
Although I’m currently into poems, and the lines I select sometimes seem to have a direct connection to the photographs, I try to avoid any categorization and instead like titles which open up the interpretation so to speak. However, when searching for a fitting poem I sometimes find a new interpretation to a photograph, something completely different, so in that sense they do go together. (Btw, most of the poems are contemporary because “old English” is just a bit too unnatural for me to use in titles.)
Yes, Juha, that’s what I like in your way of selecting titles. It can open up to new seeing – and as a quote it never sounds contrived.
I never think that much about these things – I am always under the impression too much thinking deters me from having fun and delight in art, photography.
No rules. It’s more about what one feels is right at this moment for this photo at this point of his life. Since most of us are amateurs we have the privilege to do as we please and if with the next post someone wants to quote the complete Ulysses, abandon all titles or start writing own poems, why not?
Of course – with feeds that often don’t show the whole posts and tweets – you could use the title to attract people to your blog. I am not going to click on a tweet that says: photo #13456 but perhaps on a tweet that says “title, what title?” đ But again, no rules.
And about me? I am lazy, that’s all – I don’t have to think about titles, I just open the book or the magazine and let my mind wander over the sentences.
This was the concept right from the start of my blogging – my blog wouldn’t exist without this conept. Or would have died after four weeks because of my laziness.