Repost: Titling and Storytelling

I’ve always believed a strong image should be able to stand on its own without a title – after all, sometimes images and titles get separated (quite often, actually) – and if it isn’t self-explanatory to some degree without it, then the image itself isn’t clear. However, a good title certainly enhances impact of an image; it can explain, direct, add another layer of meaning, put into context, force the thoughts of the audience in a certain direction, create contrast or tension between perceptual reality and actual reality (visual content vs asserted content or vice versa) or merely serve as an easy method of reference to an image. I’ve frequently been asked how I pick a title for my images; today’s essay explores that in a bit more detail. There really isn’t a lot of science in it, though a large vocabulary probably helps, as does a ready store of cultural references. Firstly, I don’t think choosing – or perhaps more appropriately, creating a title can be entirely spontaneous and retrospective. In fact, it really all boils down to the fourth important thing.

Do you think this image works better with or without a title?

Titling is really an exercise in distilling the visual overload of an image down to a punchy epithet – condensing the thousand words a picture is said to contain down to just a small handful. This of course means that without clarity in the mind of the creator around precisely what the image is about, there can be absolutely no way to distill it down to one essential sentence; and if the creator cannot do it, how on earth can they expect the audience to manage?

All good images must start with an idea: whether that idea is preconceived and the image constructed around it, or created in the instant in which the photographer happens to see all of the necessary elements in a scene come together is irrelevant; the idea remains the core to which every other aspect of the image (subjects, composition, output medium, title etc.) must aim to support and remain faithful to.

It’s actually fairly easy to create a strong title if the idea is clear. Beyond the obvious purpose of serving to enhance the overall impact of the image, the title itself can serve any one (or more) of several functions:

//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js
Relative value

To state the obvious
This is probably the weakest kind of title because it adds nothing much other than a way of easily referring to an image, or confirming something the audience might have suspected on their own. That said, you still have to get a bit creative in order not to have duplicates if you’ve got a lot of images to title. I don’t think there’s much point in a title like this unless the ‘label objective’ is important, or the image is likely to be seen by a wide audience – some of whom might lack the specific knowledge or context to identify the subjects or what is going on in the frame. I think there are only two exceptions to this rule – landscapes, which are generally very difficult subjects to turn into metaphors; and images whose content is so simple and minimalist that anything more in the title would simply seem pretentious.

To provide context outside what is visible
Sometimes context in word-form is necessary because it’s physically impossible to include all of the necessary elements due to temporal or space constraints, or because we want to focus our audience’s attention on a detail, then get them to appreciate its place in a much greater whole. It’s also possible to extend this into a caption – the kind of thing that’s seen accompanying news or documentary images to give some explanation of why the specific moment captured is an important one, and in what grand scheme of things exactly. I don’t think it really works other than in a documentary application for the simple reason that if that much additional explanation is required, then we’re probably looking at the image as support for a greater presentation of information rather than being a standalone piece.

Sliced thin

To highlight a less obvious aspect of the image
There are situations in which an idea requires the subject to be less visually prominent than would be ideal to make it stand out on its own (i.e. if the focus of the image was just the subject irrelevant of the context) – in this case, the title can help to direct the attention of the audience back to the subject – and in turn, the contrast between subject and its environment. Beyond this, there’s also the metaphorical or conceptual element of an idea – this isn’t always something that can be carried purely on visuals alone, for reasons of physical impossibility or cultural context; it’s not the same as providing context – e.g. “Emperor Mobutu’s heavily armed delegation meets union delegation to discuss worker benefits amid countrywide rioting against the the current regime” vs. “Only the clouds are truly free” – both allude to events outside the frame, but the latter has a conceptual rather than physical basis.

To provide contrast
Perhaps this should be stated a little differently: an alternative way of reading the image. It contrasts with the obvious visual content, but perhaps not necessarily the full range of plausible interpretations; anthropomorphization is perhaps the best example of this, and I find these types of titles are best applied to more abstract images: either because the real, physical object isn’t obvious, or because we’re seeing something that really looks like something else (but isn’t).

To set the mood of the image
I think this is fairly self-explanatory. Remember, photography is as much applied human psychology as it is technical skill – both for the photographer and the audience. The use of certain words can trigger specific subconscious expectations by association; e.g. ‘morning’, or ‘dark’ can bias the audience’s perception in a certain direction that might help to tip the overall feel imparted by an image in a particular direction, especially if the image itself is lacking in those visual cues (or those cues are very difficult to provide, e.g. smell, temperature, sound).

Big shoes ot fill

To enhance remembrance, raise a question and provoke thought
The overarching purpose of a title still remains to provide additional information: whether that information is simply to inform, to arouse curiosity, or to confirm what the audience’s eyes are telling them, if the title does not do this, it fails. But in doing so, there’s absolutely no reason why the title cannot also serve to enhance the long term impact and retention of an image in the mind of the audience long after the image is not present; either by the completeness of the image-title pair, or because something there requires additional cogitation to understand fully: in essence, a philosophical morsel offered in joint visual and literary form.

City in a box

There are actually times when a title might not be appropriate; this isn’t quite the same as the use of ‘Untitled’. In a series – e.g. the Verticality project – I may not use a specific title for each image as I want to project an impression of consistency throughout; they make do with just a number. I don’t want to give any one image dominance over another by singling it out and giving it a name – especially when the others may not necessarily have obvious names. I’m also avoiding names because I think the subject matter is cold, hard, to some extent inhuman, and therefore not deserving of any sort of anthropomorphization.

Untitled

The use of ‘untitled’ can be laziness on the photographer’s part, but often I often used it instead when I deliberately do not want to color the impressions of the audience with my own interpretation of the scene; it’s a sort of cue that I want to present the image and let you form your own conclusions. The only impression I want to give is one of a wide range of possibilities. It too is not quite the same as simply leaving out the title entirely – in which case the images are perhaps commoditized somewhat, and not as individually celebrated as if they were isolated. Note that not all images can be titled – some are simply lacking in coherency of idea.

The example articles in this images have been chosen specifically because they were composed with the intention of being multilayered and also because I believe they need a title for maximum impact; now that you’ve read the logic behind how I title, it might be worthwhile to go back through the images and titles again – or view them without titles. It’s also important to note that for maximum impact and coherence, the literary feel of the title should suit the visual feel of the image – e.g. minimalist, technical, surreal etc. Remember that the image should always be capable of standing on its own without its title – perhaps not as strongly, but titles and images often get separated (or the photographer simply forgets after a period of time). To close off, here are two little exercises to try next time you’re shooting and curating: firstly, try fitting a title to your image as soon as you’ve shot it, or only keep/process images that you can easily title; then look at the resulting set overall and see if the impact has increased. Secondly, give a title immediately after shooting, then give another title after processing – and compare the two. If the first title stuck after a period of time – I call it the ‘objectivity waiting period’ – then you’ve probably got a winner. MT

Now over to you: a) shoot and title based on an idea, b) respond, and title afterwards, or c) no title? Discuss in the comments 🙂

__________________

Visit the Teaching Store to up your photographic game – including workshop and Photoshop Workflow videos and the customized Email School of Photography; or go mobile with the Photography Compendium for iPad. You can also get your gear from B&H and Amazon. Prices are the same as normal, however a small portion of your purchase value is referred back to me. Thanks!

Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and join the reader Flickr group!

Images and content copyright Ming Thein | mingthein.com 2012 onwards. All rights reserved