The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

photo: Fence, Yard & Fog

Streetshooter

Subscriber Member
Ya know you asked for comments soooo,
I really like the image...but I hate the title.....

The title forces the frame to be a box....instead of a window..
shooter
 

tom in mpls

Active member
Thank you, Godfrey. I had always thought fog was a losing proposition...lots of gray nothing. I am wrong. On vacation a week ago we had dreary weather, so I made lemonade, so to speak. Here's one of my fog pics:

Early morning
E-P1, exif data is missing. All I know is that it was shot with the 14-42 kit lens.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Ya know you asked for comments soooo,
I really like the image...but I hate the title.....

The title forces the frame to be a box....instead of a window..
shooter
Thank you for the comment. However, I honestly don't understand what you mean ... can you articulate further what distinction you're making the allusion the title forces the frame to be a box....instead of a window ?

BTW: Did you read the blog post or just look at the photo?

thx!
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Thanks for commenting, tom.

That's a nice shot. You should keep going with the concept of working the fog. :)
 

Streetshooter

Subscriber Member
Thank you for the comment. However, I honestly don't understand what you mean ... can you articulate further what distinction you're making the allusion the title forces the frame to be a box....instead of a window ?

BTW: Did you read the blog post or just look at the photo?

thx!
Godfrey,
I will try to explain....

Let's start by seeing the rectangle as a frame...thus the saying, framing an image, used during capture....

When an image is presented to a viewer.....the viewer gets a certain amount of info from the image...then the imagination starts to flow and the juices start to flow.....

The image is it's own reality....not a representation of a 3 dimensional reality but it's own reality.......

If the image has a descriptive title, then it forces a preconception on the viewer....the viewer is froces to accept the words to the image and it inhibits the viewing experience...thus the term...
it's in a box......

Without the title...the viewer's imagination is forced to work and try to reach it's own conclusions about the image.....this is allowing the viewer to be a part of the image and because of this interaction, the frame becomes a window.....

With your image above, the content is very decsriptive by itself, and I soooo wanted to take off on it...( I did anyway) but the words kept forcing me to see it THEIR way that I was in a BOX....

This is neither a positive nor negative comment but merely a try at a description of the question you asked......

Don
 

Streetshooter

Subscriber Member
Thank you, Godfrey. I had always thought fog was a losing proposition...lots of gray nothing. I am wrong. On vacation a week ago we had dreary weather, so I made lemonade, so to speak. Here's one of my fog pics:

Early morning
E-P1, exif data is missing. All I know is that it was shot with the 14-42 kit lens.
Tom,

Interesting image......
I am captivated by the creature crawling out of the water........
Don
 

woodmancy

Subscriber Member
Godfrey,
I will try to explain....

Let's start by seeing the rectangle as a frame...thus the saying, framing an image, used during capture....

. . . . . .
it's in a box......

Without the title...the viewer's imagination is forced to work and try to reach it's own conclusions about the image.....this is allowing the viewer to be a part of the image and because of this interaction, the frame becomes a window.....


Don
Thanks Don, that is illuminating. I'm a great fan of David Hockney, and his message is that the painting always represents a story that the viewer can figure out in his own way. I'm too lazy to give my pictures names but now I see that this might be a distraction to the strength of the image.
Still a lovely picture Godfrey, and I love the others on your web site.

Keith
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
thanks again everyone for the comments!

@street:

Oh I understand that, yes indeed. The imposition of a title does change the perception of an image.

As the author of a piece, one can either leave it untitled or title it. The problem is one of communication, in my opinion. If you leave a piece untitled, it still has a name ... "Untitled" ... which can either say to a viewer "I didn't know what to make of this, maybe you do" (kind of a weak message imo) or it can say, "The piece speaks for itself, you should be able to figure it out; if you can't, tough" which seems pretentious to me. Too strong a title pushes the viewer into too narrow a channel of perception. Too weak a title often reduces the viewer's interest in a piece. The most often heard question on showing a person a photograph that isn't intended to be totally literal is, "What is that a picture of?"

So there are hard and yet fuzzy lines in the pavement to step around.

I feel I have to title my work somehow, as a practical matter, for the simple purpose of having some handle for a person to refer to it by. I dislike the pretension implied in a title like "Untitled #2044a". I spend a lot of time thinking about the titles I apply so as not, in my opinion, to box in the viewer's perceptions too much while giving some suggestion of my intent in the authoring of a piece.

NO solution to titling is perfect, I've found, and it affect some people more and in different way than it does others. Many completely ignore the titles I put on the photos, others seem to become fixated on them and suggest changes, alternatives, elision ...

All points of view are worth listening to, however, so I thank you for bringing up this interesting topic.
 

Streetshooter

Subscriber Member
Godfrey,
You certainly have a grasp on the ideas.

We as photographers live by a rule known as,
"The inverse square law".
For me, less info going into an image gives me more to ponder upon.

Your fence image has a very delicate feeling to it and yet it is obstructed by the fence.
It makes me search out what is beyound my reach....
That I am not allowed to touch....

The title for me describes things that hold back my exploration.
It's your image, your title...and my opinion....
Don
 

tom in mpls

Active member
Tom,

Interesting image......
I am captivated by the creature crawling out of the water........
Don
I think you mean the thing on the rock near the left margin. I hadn't even noticed before, but I know the location very well. What you see is an iron pipe or bar imbedded next to the rock. It does look like something alive.
 

m3photo

New member
Re: Titles

Oh I understand that, yes indeed. The imposition of a title does change the perception of an image.
I hadn't thought of it this way. Hmm, could be interesting.

As the author of a piece, one can either leave it untitled or title it. The problem is one of communication, in my opinion. If you leave a piece untitled, it still has a name ... "Untitled" ... which can either say to a viewer "I didn't know what to make of this, maybe you do" (kind of a weak message imo) or it can say, "The piece speaks for itself, you should be able to figure it out; if you can't, tough" which seems pretentious to me.
I quite agree.

I feel I have to title my work somehow, as a practical matter, for the simple purpose of having some handle for a person to refer to it by. I dislike the pretension implied in a title like "Untitled #2044a". I spend a lot of time thinking about the titles I apply so as not, in my opinion, to box in the viewer's perceptions too much while giving some suggestion of my intent in the authoring of a piece.
I often find myself giving the image I'm shooting a title there and then, even going so far as to not bothering to fire the shutter when what I thought would be initially an interesting subject to photograph and put a title to turns out not to be so in the viewfinder.

It's the old English saying many Americans chuckle at: Horses for Courses.
 

Streetshooter

Subscriber Member
Hmmmm, not sure I really agree about the "Untitled" thing.....

As a title, it still leaves the viewer open space to ponder the image and reach their own conclusion without preconceptions going in to it.

I'm not saying that all descriptive titles are not valid, just the opposite. A title becomes a part of the work just as much as a frame and mat does.

For me, and really, for many others....a date and or location is all that's needed...but then again.....

as so many American's say....."Horses For Courses"........
 
Top