Whats In An Image Name (or not)

[sierraman]

When you put an image out for public review (either here or in show/gallery), do you try to keep the image name simple or not? Ansel Adam's images seemed to have names pretty much to match his subject matter (Moonrise Hernandez, Moon and Half Dome ect..) while others may use a single dramatic word (Peter Lik) to describe a similar image. I guess my question is weather the name of an image makes any difference on how you feel about the image. I've thought about attaching some creative names to my images but its just not me. Just asking how others put a name to their work.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I find it very difficult to come up with good names that don't either cheapen the image or limit the ways the viewer might approach it. Thus most of my image names are either explicit mention of the obvious subject ("Two White Onions," or "Blanket"), or the location ("Plum Island #237") or simply "Untitled" (of which I have several thousand.)

I do admire the (very) few photographers who seem to be able to come up with titles that encourage looking deeply at an image without limiting the interpretive possibilities.

I'll admit I have sometimes been tempted to give "deep" titles that have no relationship with the image at all (perhaps "The Triumph of Good over Evil" for a seascape, or an obscure biblical reference like, maybe, "Leviticus 17:9." (Full disclosure: I haven't even looked up Leviticus 17:9 to see if it exists or what it says).

Every time I have tried to come up with a "creative" title, my wife has shot it down.

I'd like to hear comments from others.

Eric

[Nelsonretreat]

I think the answer to your question will be personal to each photographer and reflect their approach to photography. Personally,  I never title photographs because I don't feel any information or label is necessary. The image is the image and a title doesn't really add anything. Also, as a landsccape photographer I never indicate where the photograph was taken. I feel it's not really important. Because we title a bird an eagle doesn't really add anything to our understanding of the concept of 'eagle' or its 'eagleness'. Similarly knowing that the mountain is Mount Widget doesn't really add much to our understanding or appreciation of the image of the mountain or its 'mountainess'. 

[pw-pix]

I stick to geographic names, where I made the image.
Other titles that suggest meaning and ideas seem wrong to me, let the viewer form their own feelings and ideas about the image.

[stamper]

Unfortunately on Flickr and other photo sites some photographers title their images with the tag that was added by LR such as Edit ****. That I don't understand. I try to add something that gives a clue to the location because that is the question a photographer viewing an image generally asks? I think every image should have a title.

[Rob C]

There are no rules.

If you don't have anything specific in mind about your picture, that's okay; if you do feel you made it to illustrate something in particular or that, by chance, it does that on its own, why shouldn't you have the added pleasure of pointing that out?

Third parties are ever at liberty to make of anything whatever they will, which is also interesting, and alternative titles from a sophisticated/perceptive third party can jolt the creator into a surprise about his/her own production.

The concept of 'leaving it orphaned' strikes me as the result of the author not really knowing what the hell he was trying to do or, perhaps, knowing that he didn't pull it off. But again, as I wrote, there are no rules - thank goodness.

Rob C

[Otto Phocus]

I have a habit (good or bad) of incorporating puns or alternative meanings when I title a photograph that I share. Sometimes they are even funny.   

But generally, I like the photograph to "speak" for itself.

When saving the photograph to my storage, I use long descriptive names that are easy to use search terms for.  Sometimes they work.   

But as for showing photographs, the title wording is truly up to the photographer.  Nothing says you have to have one and only one naming schema for every photograph. Go with what inspires you.

However, and this is truly only my opinion, if you feel that you need a specific title in order to let the viewer understand the feeling of your photograph, perhaps the photograph is not clear (context wise) enough?

[Rob C]

I have a habit (good or bad) of incorporating puns or alternative meanings when I title a photograph that I share. Sometimes they are even funny.   

But generally, I like the photograph to "speak" for itself.

When saving the photograph to my storage, I use long descriptive names that are easy to use search terms for.  Sometimes they work.   

But as for showing photographs, the title wording is truly up to the photographer.  Nothing says you have to have one and only one naming schema for every photograph. Go with what inspires you.

However, and this is truly only my opinion, if you feel that you need a specific title in order to let the viewer understand the feeling of your photograph, perhaps the photograph is not clear (context wise) enough?

No, it's also mine, in an ever so slightly different gear; either way it boils down to doubts that plague us all:

"The concept of 'leaving it orphaned' strikes me as the result of the author not really knowing what the hell he was trying to do or, perhaps, knowing that he didn't pull it off. But again, as I wrote, there are no rules - thank goodness."

Rob

[Colorado David]

I have a degree in music so at times I have a tendency to apply musical sensibilities to other pursuits. In music, a piece can be titled buy a number. For example a symphony number five, etude number three, Sonata number 42, you get the idea. Or you can name it something descriptive. A descriptive name then places the piece of music in a category called program music. An example would be Claude Debussy's Prelude to the Afternoon of a Fawn. When the composer does this the listener then begins to form a mental picture based on the title of the piece. I suppose a photographer could use a similar approach and title an image with a number, but they're also free to use a descriptive title that will help the viewer to understanding the image much like a title to a piece of music helps the listener to understand. Although Beethoven did not use the name Moonlight Sonata, whoever did certainly predisposed the listener to that mental picture.

[john beardsworth]

I have a degree in music so at times I have a tendency to apply musical sensibilities to other pursuits. In music, a piece can be titled buy a number. For example a symphony number five, etude number three, Sonata number 42, you get the idea.

I do see that sometimes. For extra gravitas, or to BS, one would add Roman numerals as in Lily Study IX.