Why not meaningfull titles and descriptions on photos?

[johnastovall]

I notice when looking at the galley here a very large number of the photographs just have the original raw file name. Not title, no description about where and what it is. Maybe I'm too in love with the words and language but why don't people title their pictures with something more than algorithmic file names?

[steve817]

For me it's simple. It's not my thing.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by steve817

For me it's simple. It's not my thing.

So your thing is obfustication? I'm trying to understand that?

[Daniel Bates]

Titling photos also helps when archiving them, because a search for the keywords will pull up the relevant photos. I title all my work by date and subject (either in folders or in the filenames) so I can find anything I've shot in the past year just by looking in the right directories.

[Duffy Pratt]

I can think of a few reasons: It takes an extra step, and people (including me) are lazy.

A better reason is that pictures should speak for themselves. In other words: "Titles? We don't need no stinking titles." To the extent that the title is the photographer's commentary on the picture, I usually would rather not hear it. Let me give some examples: Cartier Bresson's picture of the man jumping the puddle. Arbus' twins, Stieglitz picture of the slender tree growing on the city sidewalk. I have no idea what any of these pictures is actually titled, and I feel better off for not knowing, because I really don't believe that any title would do justice to the pictures themselves. I'm not saying anything I shoot is in this league, but I would at least like to think that some of my pictures stand on their own two feet and don't need an additional prop.

I can think of one other reason in my position. I probably have somewhere around 2000 pictures of my dogs, and maybe 1200 of them playing together or with other dogs. I keyword the pictures for my own use, but I couldn't even begin to think of 2000 different titles for them.

Duffy

[Mike G]

Because all my images are archived by directory with the directory name being the date and name of the shoot. I could care less what the file name is when I can open the directory and view the images to find the one I'm after just as quickly if not quicker than looking for a file name.

[AndrewCCM]

Wedding image356.jpg, wedding image357.jpg... LOL!

I am like Mike though. Mine are in Shoot titled folders and subfolders broken out... (RAW, PSD, JPG, WEB). I do try and name them when I have something special...but for most everyday shots or one of hundreds from a specific shoot, I tend not to specifically title them.

[kenw]

People, please re-read John's post: He isn't asking you to re-title your entire file system, just the resized and compressed images on you post here in your TPF gallery.

[AndrewCCM]

Originally Posted by kenw

People, please re-read John's post: He isn't asking you to re-title your entire file system, just the resized and compressed images on you post here in your TPF gallery.

Ah.. Good catch.

[Mike G]

Still don't see the reason .. are you reading the filename or looking at the image, does the file name change your opinion of the image?

[steve817]

Obfustication or obfuscation?

[kenw]

Originally Posted by nitromike

Still don't see the reason .. are you reading the filename or looking at the image, does the file name change your opinion of the image?

no, but it might give somone an idea of what you see, the emotions you felt, the goal of your effort. If your pic is not deserving of a title in your opinion, why should I bother to look at it?

[Mike G]

And I go back to my point .. why should I title an image if the meaning and emotions are conveyed by the image, this isn't journalism, I'm not getting my meaning across using words.

[johnastovall]

For all not wanting to title, I point out even Wesson, titled this masterpeice, Pepper No. 30.

Adams provided a little information with "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico." They weren't photojournalists but the need for some title more meaningful than _#luoeh*29789689.raw.

Weston and Adams work certainly stood on its own but they did see the need for some context for the image.

[Mike G]

They felt .. not there was a need for. It was their opinion.