Erez Marom: On the importance of naming images

Superior photography from author!

I'm a little confused. I presume we are talking about file naming conventions for digital images and scans. If that is the case, the file naming convention described here is one of the worst I have seen. It is essentially backwards. I specialize in file naming conventions for engineering, manufacturing part numbers, and other digitally stored documentation. I am also a professional photographer and I have cataloged several hundred thousand of my own images and another half million of my clients images, all stored on disk. The naming convention specified here might be fine for an image or print caption, but not digital storage. The convention I use is XXX-ProjectNameOrID-YYMMDD-ImageNumberOrID(from camera)-Title(optional)-RevisionNo(optional).FileNameExtention, where XXX are the initials of the photographer and the date is the date the photo was taken. This convention insures images remain grouped together by Photographer, Project, Date, Title and Revision.

Art is simply an expression of individual creative ideas, so as the title. A title "Find a Shark" underneath a wall art in a corporate office may sound confusing or out of place to me, but a title "Find a Shark, by Erez Marom" would add certain distinction and individuality to the author, and not in a bad way (regardless of whether I like or dislike the title). So yes, naming art is important as it reflects more on the author than on the art itself IMO.

Great images and, whether you agree or disagree, it is a thought provoking article, especially if you apply it across many art forms beyond photography (sculpture, painting, music, (Dave Matthews #34, 36, and 41 always intrigued for breaking the naming convention, sort of)).

Anyway, it provides the opening for an interesting discussion. It's just sad that people cannot disagree with a point without so much invective.

Your titles are good, and so they complement your fantastic images nicely.
In the case of mediocre images -- which is mostly my output today as a beginner -- I don't think titles are necessarily a good idea.
One needs to have the technique down (=experience) before finding one's voice and vision as a photographer.

I guess I never really never thought about that before...... I never really named my images before unless I was uploading them somewhere....... I have to think about this more!

What a silly article.

If title and image are synergy it's great, but create it not so simple.
For many people is hard create tags and you say for "title", this require ability.

i would name the lot of them "rubbish by pretentious wannabe hack photographer who plays name games after expensive pointless trips to obtain such photos"

its a kind of picasso-esque sort of name.

What about sticking to descriptive titles or captioning - seems to have worked for the great masters - perhaps the more esoteric is suited to the likes of Jackson Pollock's Blue Poles - never did get the reference or inference, but you don't forget it!! Better a title than none - I always feel that there is something lacking in the artist communicating with her/his viewers with a title - Untitled.

There's nothing worse than seeing an arty farty title on an average image

Apart from record keeping/identification purposes and to provide context with art pieces, I really don't think it's necessary to name a photograph.
If you're not good at coming up with an apt name it will detract from the image. On the flip-side the name/description could be a piece of work in and of itself.

Last paragraph from the article: " give it the respect it deserves and your photography will benefit greatly, not only in terms of its visual content but in the amount of connection both you and the viewers feel toward it.".... I agree 100%
Great article for a healthy discussion.

Really good photos, although I disagree with naming photos being important to photography. I let the photos do the talking, and any "title" I give is purely for descriptive purposes e.g. "St Pauls IR". I rarely give proper titles and only reserve it for abstract/conceptual photos.

Excellent content and really wonderful images, thanks for this.

Good food for thought in the article - thanks!

I disagree. You are undemining the impact of the photo with some random titles.

"Arc de Triomph"? WHY? You are in Greenland, stay in Greenland. If you like Paris that much, go there. I see no point in having eyes on Greenland, while my mind is set to Paris.

I'm a fan of one-word titles but 'Canary Island' is spot on and some others decent.

Additionally the images are fantastic.

This article is nothing short of pretentious twaddle.

To aptly name a picture is an art in itself, and a talent not many people have. The titles of this pictures are examples of such talent. And of course the pictures are spectacular. On the Pentax forum we also have at least one member with excellent titling talent, PentaxPrime, but he does not post that much these days. And my advice to people who don't like titles is to just not read it (advice given to me many times after I complained about foul language on the forums).

As an qualified judge on our local Photographic circuit (North-West England) I often comment on the titles given by photographers. Usually, because the title often refers to something that isn't in the picture. Often because the title is in conflict with what the author wants me to see.

I want a simple title that adds to what the author intends me to see; not some clever cultural reference (modern or classical) that could easily go over my or another viewer's head.

If the picture is "worth a thousand words" just help me with some background information.

Personally, I like simple abstract nouns if I'm not required to give geographical references.

But you made some good points, even if some are, IMHO, a bit clever!

Mike

I always prefer to keep things simple. Short descriptive titles are fine for me, sometimes complemented by longer descriptions if required. For example, Ansel Adams titled many of his images in a descriptive and plain way; in Salgado's latest opus (Genesis), he has some descriptive titles, complemented by longer and documental descriptions. In the end, it depends.

P.S. I am surprised at the acidity of some people here; these are fine images, in line with what many photographers do these days. So much envy and so little talent perhaps?

Well. No titles for me please, "forcing me", or "helping me" to understand what's going on. I'd rather form my own interpretation.

A simple indication of place and time where appropriate, that's quite enough thank you very much.

One thing that is guaranteed with this bloke's articles is pretension. Another is a hilarious lack of self-awareness

how about “Over-Processed cliche in blue, number 14”

I mustn't have slept well last night or wouldn't have been in such an uptight mood this morning. Now I feel much more comfortable with the titles. Quite endearing in fact. Like a friendly smile from the photographer. Could help one relax and enjoy instead of standing awe-stricken in front of the masterworks. And the cross-cultural/intertextual/whatever references are educating.

Very nice article and spot-on!
I love how you use the title to draw more focus to the image and force the viewer to analyze it actively.
Thank you

For me, the main reason to have a title is for reference. Whether to easily point out and discuss the photo that's part of a collection or to google/search for it later.

In fact, when viewing photographs I only look at the title after having inspected the photo first (and found it worthy in one way or another).

The photos are fantastic as always, titled or not. I don't think nifty little jokes work very well as titles but can't believe they can really ruin the work. Just have a chuckle and say that was funny but now let's have a look at the photo...

I prefer descriptive titles that add some context, but not so much titles that deliberately add content to an image that is only there in the view of the photographer.
For example in 'Canary Cape', I didn't see that canary, but I was enjoying the picture and was discovering every detail of it, from front to fae back. But since I've read the title, I only see a stupid canary shape. Its impossible for my brain now to concentrate on the mountains far back and to discover any detail, all I see is a canary shape. The picture is reduced to just that shape, the background could have been black now and the value of the image would be the same. That's just my personal opinion.

Beautiful images. I like the information about naming artwork. I try to name my imags.
Thanks for sharing.

So cheesy. Just use the location or a brief description of the subject.

I don't even bother with that, I name my shots with the exif info using an app called EXIF Renamer. If someone wonders, they can ask me.

It's not a slam-dunk winner to start naming photos. Ming Thein thinks that he is really good at it but he actually isn't and often detracts from his work or examples.

In the above article the names given tend to trivialize and detract from some strong images. Better to keep to the truth of what you really set out to do. Without that, names start looking silly. I could take the first six example images and name them:
Mt Bra
400mph Tide
Skullvision
Smoker's Lung
Green Tea and Salt
Swordfish

People might say "that's so clever it really made me take another look" in person, then go online and say "gee you ruined it".

Name With Care.

I think there is a place for both naming or not naming them. For example, nobody complains that "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" has a name, just as nobody is trying to give a proper name to 9th Symphony... Sometimes it works, sometimes not, and it is up to the artist to choose. Right now I can't remember what the 4th or 5th symphonies sound like. Also, artist's view should be respected. As a musician I get annoyed when someone tells me "I loved the 4th and the 7th track of your album" - I have to mentally count them to know what they are talking about. They have names, which are also open for interpretation. Some bands do name their tracks I, II, III and so forth and in that case it's completely acceptable.
Enjoyed the photos! \m/

I name images only when it adds valuable information or depth to the subject—but certainly never to ridicule the pictures contents!

Looks like there is no place for the viewer to see his/her own things and ideas in these photographs. With the titles you shut the door and prohibit viewers from contemplation and self-reflection.

I tried naming my images and it made no difference to gaining any more exposure or interest. It could be that they are just rubbish.

This was the source of much hand-wringing, and angst when I was an art student in the 70's. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Subjective titles are so distracting and nothing makes me move on as quickly. As a viewer, I dislike being spoonfed ideas such as "Reverse evolution" and "Spot the shark". Imagine how much more happy the viewer would be having discovered the shark on their own.

'How not to name your images', would have been more apt. I can't think of a better way of undermining a photograph than a bad title. The two worst techniques are literalism (often in the guise of something poetic-sounding) and bad jokes. I see both here. Untitled is far more effective.

I never name my pictures but is should do it with some of my favorite ones i have taken.

When i slide show SOME of my favorite pictures, mentally ( and maybe unconscionably) i think of a word.

Many iconic art works have their name.

When i go to an art gallery or a photo exhibition., the photo should speak for it self but sometimes i see Excellent paints or photos which dont have a name... so ifeel like something is missing... Not every single image should have a name but on some images that would help.

I'm the person who would name his images "Granite Falls #1" etc. but I get this and it may have changed my view on naming pictures. Good article!

Wonderful pictures, Erez. As for naming them, I use descriptive captions, e.g., "Lassen Peak at Kings Creek Meadow." I've never warmed to the idea of giving them names. Having seen too many bad photos with "cute" names has ruined it for me, I guess.

The recent story about Marta Zgierska answered this for me.

"Behind every photo there is a story that does not in fact need to be told."

—Marta Zgierska

Looking at an untitled photo probably tells many stories to different people. It would be interesting to have some number of people (20?) look at a photo and have them write what story they saw in the photo.

I don't name my images (some could pass for art if I processed them differently, most are snapshot record keeping of my more important past time, hiking in and exploring the natural world). But, I do provide a name of the location under each image.

Titles definitely give a photo an interpretative bent and lead the viewer in a certain direction.

Photography is only a medium. At the end of the day, a photographer is more than just that; he/she is an artist. There is no good reason for one's art to end at the posting or printing of a photo, unless one chooses to do so. As an "artist," one is free to use multiple mediums, including words, in combination to convey one's art. It's not like writers aren't allowed to give their books titles.

Interesting but you would have failed a course at university in Sydney titled what is art. It has universal appeal , needs no language and selectively perceived by the observer from his or her perspective. I often get annoyed by titles describing a emotion when I observe with a totally different emotion. Naming where taken is interesting for people who may never get to these places.