Untitled

As a club, we do not disclose the titles of pictures - either projected images or prints - during competitions. Other clubs do so. What is the view of members?

This picture has its title concealed - hover your mouse over the image, and if I have got the technology right it should appear.

Does having the title make this picture more intelligible?

It is a spin-off from taking pictures of cyclists in November, but critical input is welcome!

-- JohnAshford - 17 Nov 2008

17 Nov 2008 22:00:14 TomPizzey:

My first instinct is "no" we shouldn't as I do like to try an work out for myself what the photographer is thinking. However, I have had the occurance whilst being judged at a competition where the judge didn't really know what it was he was looking at and it was frustrating, as to me, it was obvious. I wonder whether I was marked down because of it. I do like taking abstract shots and I think when doing abstract photos a title can become advantageous, the above pictures shows that, as to me, the title does make me view it in a different way.

---

18 Nov 2008 01:39:49 JackRuss:

My thoughts on naming the title is that it can be a extra dimension to the picture as it can inject a thought, humor or just be information in to why and less confusing ? whether this is a good thing or as Tom said he likes to try and work out for himself, but a judge has a limited time to give an view "critique" and a mark. Naming a picture cold reduce this. "We" could just ask the judge before they start if it would help or be better for them? A very good question John

---

19 Nov 2008 18:24:15 ChrisYeatman:

I think that titles should be allowed but not compulsory. A title can put the photo in to context and that can make a big difference to how you see it. I am sure it would make a difference with judges where sometimes they just miss the point.

---

20 Nov 2008 10:19:30 RodBird:

I agree with Jack/George and Chris. The presence of a title or caption adds a useful context to a photo, and this improves the experience for the person in the audience, especially if the caption's a factual one.

Another consideration is that from the back of the hall it's sometimes not easy to see a picture clearly, and the caption would help a lot. For instance Rod Morrod's "Fighting Terns" was small, subtle and very impressive, but without a caption we couldn't make it out.

---

23 Nov 2008 22:44:16 DavidBirch:

I am in the "No" camp on this one. I feel that the photograph should have sufficient about for it to stand on its own, certainly for competitions. Titles can sometimes be more successful than the image, and what I feel we do not want is a judge to be influenced by for example a "twee" title, which adds too much to the scoring. The judge should be judging the image, not the title. However, we could try giving titles in a non-competitive evening, as an experiment, in, say one of our internal critique sessions.

---

05 Dec 2008 16:47:03 JohnAshford:

Thanks - I'll talk to the committee about an experiment with titles during some future evening, preferably when the judging is 'by the members'

---