...Additional People In The Background.

AHA, BD. I see you've come over to the dark side. Welcome, brother.

Tom

Originally Posted by black mamba AHA, BD. I see you've come over to the dark side. Welcome, brother. Tom

Nice BD. Good to see you have a sense of humor. Nice image.

... or as some unnamed person (with the initials B D C) might challenge, "How do you know it is two families?"

Of greater interest is that there is a car inside the shop and, further, an unattached arm reaching into the pic from the right side doing who knows what.

I initially refused to respond to this obvious attempt to get under my skin, B.D., but one tiny thing kept nagging at me. You successfully identified this image, and literally everything in it, without giving us the tiniest inkling of what you thought we should see.

Thanks for the unintended support.

Originally Posted by thoth I initially refused to respond to this obvious attempt to get under my skin, B.D., but one tiny thing kept nagging at me. You successfully identified this image, and literally everything in it, without giving us the tiniest inkling of what you thought we should see. Thanks for the unintended support.

Travis, I don't think this is about unintended support. The "problem" won't disappear but it would be nice if there was less "leading the witness" when setting up threads. FYI, I'm liable to continue to use very simple if completely ambiguous thread titles.

Now back to our regularly scheduled photography discussions.

Nice shot B.D. It looks like the lady in the back centre right caught sight of you. Still, I love these sort of nicely composed candid shots.

Originally Posted by michswiss Travis, I don't think this is about unintended support. The "problem" won't disappear but it would be nice if there was less "leading the witness" when setting up threads. FYI, I'm liable to continue to use very simple if completely ambiguous thread titles..

I'm sorry, Jen, but I was actually just returning a bit of the sarcasm in this case. The point still stands, though, that B.D.'s title does illustrate the fact that titling as a form of identification (especially on the web) is quite obviously possible.

Your titling choices are your choices. I have no intention of attempting to force anyone into any mold (as if I could). Besides, the longevity of my comments on this subject is likely no more than 24 hours. After that, all will be forgotten.

Nice and recognizably B.D.

The title fight is dumb. Yes, great photographers whom B.D. revers used them to good effect. Yes, it's great to learn to take pictures which don't need them. Yes it's nice to have a handle other than #N to refer to pictures. Yes, bad titles can detract from an image. Beyond that it's a matter of taste. Let's move on.

Originally Posted by rutt The title fight is dumb. Yes, great photographers whom B.D. revers used them to good effect. Yes, it's great to learn to take pictures which don't need them. Yes it's nice to have a handle other than #N to refer to pictures. Yes, bad titles can detract from an image. Beyond that it's a matter of taste. Let's move on.

Losing images on the internet is dumb. By all means, though, simplify it to a third grade insult and we'll use all the other great solutions floating around. Remarks like this just completely astound me. "Sure, all of the points of this titling argument are important and valid, but please ignore them so this can be a matter of taste."

Originally Posted by Molsondog Just a note on titling. Peet's or Pete's? The sign says Peet's. The title says Pete's. A viewer might just get confused and not fully appreciate the image as a result.

I worked for 26 years as a reporter, editor, columnist, have written ten books, teach writing - and I cannot spell to save my life. Back in the day, when those of us who worked in major news rooms had real union protections and could only be fired for "cause," I used to say that any time my bosses wanted to get rid of me all they had to do was assign me to the copy desk for 24 hours and by the end of that time they'd have more "cause" than they'd know what to do with.

Originally Posted by michswiss Travis, I don't think this is about unintended support. The "problem" won't disappear but it would be nice if there was less "leading the witness" when setting up threads. FYI, I'm liable to continue to use very simple if completely ambiguous thread titles. Now back to our regularly scheduled photography discussions. Nice shot B.D. It looks like the lady in the back centre right caught sight of you. Still, I love these sort of nicely composed candid shots.

Thanks Jen - She did indeed see me. And in the next shot, which I like a bit better in terms of the boys, all the adults were looking at me - although all seemed either bemused or amused, rather than threatened, which is good.

That could have resulted in very interesting stories though.

Think of all the unique interpretations if you used the wrong spelling for words?

(snicker)

Originally Posted by thoth Losing images on the internet is dumb. By all means, though, simplify it to a third grade insult and we'll use all the other great solutions floating around. Remarks like this just completely astound me. "Sure, all of the points of this titling argument are important and valid, but please ignore them so this can be a matter of taste."

No, that's not what I wrote. I tried to separate the parts of the argument that we should all be able to agree on from those we are never going to agree on. B.D. is very radical on this subject, but there is a part of his point which is very valuable: learn to take self describing pictures. You want to be able to name pictures descriptively without making the titles a element of critique. I think everyone but B.D. who is a radical on the subject can agree to that being useful.

Beyond that, what's worth discussing at this point? B.D. knows he's a radical. We all know it as well. It's sort of fun to debate him up to a point, but for me, we've passed that point.

Originally Posted by rutt No, that's not what I wrote. I tried to separate the parts of the argument that we should all be able to agree on from those we are never going to agree on. B.D. is very radical on this subject, but there is a part of his point which is very valuable: learn to take self describing pictures. You want to be able to name pictures descriptively without making the titles a element of critique. I think everyone but B.D. who is a radical on the subject can agree to that being useful. Beyond that, what's worth discussing at this point? B.D. knows he's a radical. We all know it as well. It's sort of fun to debate him up to a point, but for me, we've passed that point.

I apologize, Rutt, for misinterpreting your comment and appreciate the clarification of your intent.

The thing is, B.D. and I discussed this head-butting in private yesterday and the conclusion was that he wasn't interested in discussing titling with me. Forty-five minutes later he posted this little jab. So, I responded as anyone else would have done.

I don't care if B.D. doesn't agree with me on this matter in the least. What I do care about is that my efforts are legitimate and should be considered by anyone interested in the health of this forum. You know that and I know that and even B.D., I suspect, knows that. This thread, combined with B.D.'s replies to a couple other posts, aren't just a contradictory effort -- they are childish and demeaning. How would you propose that I should be taken seriously when Mr. Pulitzer tells the world it's a joke?

new here (1st post), so don't know what's going on with the title thing,

I love the picture. I really like the B&W in the shot, the reflections are a little distracting, but add a busy-ness to the scene. I like how everyone's hands in the picture are doing different things, and how there's more hands in the shot than people, coming in from the sides from all sides.

Originally Posted by thoth I apologize, Rutt, for misinterpreting your comment and appreciate the clarification of your intent. The thing is, B.D. and I discussed this head-butting in private yesterday and the conclusion was that he wasn't interested in discussing titling with me. Forty-five minutes later he posted this little jab. So, I responded as anyone else would have done. I don't care if B.D. doesn't agree with me on this matter in the least. What I do care about is that my efforts are legitimate and should be considered by anyone interested in the health of this forum. You know that and I know that and even B.D., I suspect, knows that. This thread, combined with B.D.'s replies to a couple other posts, aren't just a contradictory effort -- they are childish and demeaning. How would you propose that I should be taken seriously when Mr. Pulitzer tells the world it's a joke?

-----
Okay, I will engage here.

I don't really give the behind of a large rodent if someone does or does not give his or her image a title. I've explained why I try to avoid titling images; I offered an exercise in posting untitled images; and when it became clear - pretty much instantly - that everyone wanted to use titles I moved on.

As I explained to Travis privately - but he apparently wants a public discussion of this - I wasn't interested in engaging in a discussion of the development of internet naming conventions for photographs; I'm interested in discussing photographs and, where possible, how to improve them. Further, I said that I enjoy seeing his photos, but this thread of his holds no attraction for me, and he shouldn't take my not responding to it as a personal slight.

I posted a silly title on my lastest photo because I thought the whole thing was amusing. It was meant to be funny. It was not meant to be an insult to anyone. If Travis or anyone else considers it an insult, I offer my apologies. But I also suggest some lightening up might be in order.

Originally Posted by bdcolen But I also suggest some lightening up might be in order.

Amen.

Originally Posted by bdcolen I posted a silly title on my lastest photo because I thought the whole thing was amusing. It was meant to be funny. It was not meant to be an insult to anyone. If Travis or anyone else considers it an insult, I offer my apologies. But I also suggest some lightening up might be in order.

Your sense of humor worries me, B.D.

BD, your window scene reminded me of an image of mine from a few years back in the U.P.

If I were to title it, it would have to be "One More Round!"

Originally Posted by pathfinder BD, your window scene reminded me of an image of mine from a few years back in the U.P. If I were to title it, it would have to be "One More Round!"

I love it! What a hoot!