|
Forums >
General Industry >
naming photos
OK, neither of these two points are the biggest problems facing the world today, but, regarding photo names, I have one suggestion, and one suggestion/comment. (1) If you ask for comments or critique on photos, give them names, or just number them so the comments don't all start out with "In the one of you where you are..." (2) Something that bothers me a little bit is descriptive "emotional" titles. Why do you have to show a model staring off into space and call it "Thoughful" or with a big smile and call it "Gleeful" or whatever? Shouldn't the PHOTOGRAPH say those things? If the model is staring off into space and it is not clear whether she is being thoughtful or just done some 'ludes, then maybe you need a new pic, not an explanatory title. Or maybe you should remain ambiguous. Maybe the ambiguity of the photo is what is appealing so calling it "Thoughtful" (or "Heavily Sedated") will spoil the uncertainty and the photograph. I guess you have to call them something. I choose titles that help ME remember the photograph. I have one called Ypsilon because the crease reminded me of the Greek letter. Probably not terribly useful. Now I shall return to worrying about the fate of the world. Dec 15 05 04:29 pm Link Thoughtful advise. Funny as hek too. Dec 15 05 04:34 pm Link I'm pretty sure the world will take care of itself, so we need to worry this issue a little. I don't like descriptive titles for the same reasons you state. The picture should do the talking. Numbers are OK, but I tend to give the model's name and the location. Sometimes that makes duplicate titles on the port here, but it hasn't caused a problem yet. Too much description is like trying to lead the viewer to some conclusion or story, and if the photo is any good it will allow the viewer to find her own story or conclusion. -Don Dec 15 05 09:44 pm Link I've opted for the models' names and some description. That's mostly to give credit where credit is due. Plus a bit of description gives the freedom not to repeat titles. Any identifying marks make critique much easier. But I have no problem with using words to evoke more emotion. Sometimes you get a terrible title, but how many paintings have you seen or short stories or poems have you read without a title. (And I've always rejected the idea that "untitled #32" is an acceptable title for a poem or a painting...) Dec 15 05 11:10 pm Link I named my Tivo Pooky, really that is its registered name. Is that too sentimental? I mean, I do love my Tivo. If my Tivo died I don't know what I would do. I would be lost without Pooky. Poooky shows me love. Pooky tapes all my shows for me, reminds me if they change time, Pooky even suggests shows I might like. I LOVE POOKY! Dec 16 05 12:38 am Link I don't see anything wrong with putting names on photos. They are especially helpful if you sell prints. People who buy prints tend to like them to be titled - makes it more of a piece of artwork for them. And yes, some of the titles are downright pretentious but that sells as well. Although we show our work here, a place where the majority of viewers are in the biz and may or may not like titled work, I keep the titles for consistancy of tracking of my own work. BTW, the majority of my work is not titled but I reserve the right to give a piece a title when it suits me to do so. Part of that whole "artistic license" thing. But yeah, there are many more earth shaking topics to tackle than this one. ;-) Dec 16 05 06:45 am Link Star wrote: you can love your pooky, just dont make love to pooky as the climax could be too shocking. Dec 16 05 07:29 am Link I just cringe at those long titles that explain to much and dont make a lick of sense. You see a picture of a girl looking sideways holding her breast and the title is "hiding in secret from lies told at the expense of a robot lover from planet Glarnog 3" What the hell is that crap. Keep it simple people! Dec 17 05 02:16 pm Link Brian Diaz wrote: When asking for a critique then it is so very useful to add a title or number or name of the model. Dec 17 05 03:18 pm Link I dig Greg Rice and Ravens Laughter's naming conventions. Long, descriptive, emotive strands kind of like that 2nd Fiona Apple album title. Dec 17 05 08:12 pm Link Brandon Luna wrote: If you want short titles, you probably won't like this one: Dec 17 05 09:27 pm Link The problem with using models' initials is when you suddenly have 5 models with same initials! (and BB1-#45, BB3-#87 just get's confusing!) A coding system we were using in Europe went like this: year-month-day-roll:frame This way tracking and cataloging every image becomes more specific and exacting. (and easier in court) So an image shot last week, say the 4th frame on the 3rd roll, would be this: 20051212-3:4 or 200512123:4 or 200512123:#4 ...as you prefer. Dec 17 05 09:56 pm Link Photo Special LA wrote: I always liked that style of date notation. When you name computer files that way, they are automatically sorted in chronological order when you list the files in Windows explorer (if you have "sort by file name" activated.) Of course, your system would need to be modified a bit, if working with digital files instead of film, but that's not a big deal. Dec 17 05 10:17 pm Link You know which ones really piss me off! When people take shots (usually bad snapshots, thats the best  ) and then label them with things like " this is my glamour shot" and " This is a headshot" " high fashion shot" THANK YOU CAPTAIN FUCKING OBVIOUS.... If you need to tell me what kind of shot it is..well there is your first problem. It takes every bone in my little Katie body to not leave them all tags that say: "That picture is so awful you couldn't pay my 8lb dog to look at it. Wearing an old stained promdress in front of your closet, is not, and will never be, high fashion, no matter what mommy tells you. Do yourself a favor: take that title down and stop embarrassing yourself" Dec 20 05 12:08 am Link Brandon Luna wrote: That sounds fun to me. And just because you do not get it does not mean it is not well thought out. Glen Berry wrote: You think that is long. Ha, ha, you should see some of the ones I come across. Wow. Dec 20 05 12:25 am Link |
