Picture titles

[Isiliel]

I'm having a hard time finding titles for my images, and I was wondering how other people do it.

How important is a title?
Does it change the feeling of the image?
Can a title ruin an image?

All your thoughts are welcome.

After 20,000 photos last year.... flowery titles are pointless and a giant waste of my time.

[BCampbell]

Originally Posted by Isiliel

How important is a title?

Like anything else it's a personal thing. There are plenty of photographers who leave everything untitled. The only problem I have with that is when I talk to them, "Hey I love your work... Untitled is awesome, so is Untitled."

I guess a title is supposed to convey some kind of meaning to the viewer. If you want to make that meaning some kind of emotion or feeling, I guess you could choose some type of deep, deep quasi-poetry as a title. Personally, since this is a personal thing, I title with a straight description, either the place the photo was made, whatever event it is, or who/what the subject is, along with the date. But I take mostly straight photos, so that almost makes some kind of sense. Giving the viewer that context of place/time I think is enough to let them read the photo however else they like.

Does it change the feeling of the image?

Sure, I guess it can. But most often an overly poetic description usually makes me feel like the photographer doesn't trust the image to carry its own weight. If you're really trying to convey feeling in your photography, you shouldn't need a title to do it.

Can a title ruin an image?

Yes.

[David "dee" Chege]

i usually name them by what they are..eg..flower, if i have more than 1 then i number them..flower 01, flower 02 etc...

[BuddhaPi]

I let the DSLR name them..

[theosus]

I like IMG-3845.raw

[OsmosisStudios]

My portfolio images get titles, only so that I can identify them. Theyre usually not very creative.

[milosh]

I did some thinking about this myself. After seeing work of many people who give their images poetic names, I think it can improve someone's impression when looking at a photo. If it's a bad one, it can lessen the impact a photo has. Many professional landscape photogs, as far as I've seen, use only descriptive names like Late Autumn Sunset at Grand Tetons, or something like that. I think it's better to give non-artistic, descriptive names instead leaving them untitled, or with camera names. Also, I think that most of the people who sell and advertise their images stay away from artistic image descriptions.

[graciousness]

I think that if you have to think hard about what to call or put in the title of your photos, then there's no need for the title.

Usually titles are used to give context to the photos, but if it's not necessary to point out such context, then it's not necessary.

Let the image or photo speak for itself, I say

[velvet4269]

There have been a few times where a title has come to me as I'm taking the shot: (Abbey Road being the first one that comes immediately to mind (and also set the titles for the rest of the photos I posted for that day, but that rarely happens).

That said, most times, I either leave the camera titles, or pull up iTunes, put it on shuffle, and chose a random lyric that might fit