View Poll Results: Should pictures be captioned?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    8 57.14%
  • No

    6 42.86%
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: To caption or not to caption

  1. #1

    Default To caption or not to caption

    A caption attached to a picture helps to let others know the context in which the picture was taken, and also what the photographer was trying to convey, and therefore helps the viewer to better appreciate the picture.

    On the other hand, many pictures (such as those found in www.in-public.com) don't need any captions. The picture is so well captured and well composed that it tells the entire story, without any text to support it. I suppose this would be the holy grail.

    For instance, my picture of the shoes by the riverside would be completely pointless until I told you I spotted them early in the morning and there was nobody in sight. Then the questions arise.

    What do you think? Should pictures be captioned, or left untitled to tell the entire story by themselves?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    It doesn't really matter what kind of photography you are engaged in, the picture should hold its own and be able to convey your message without the need for captions. After that, there is no harm in furnishing additional details. The photograph should always engage the viewer without the caption needing to rescue it.

    In my opinion captions are great things, but are not meant to rescue struggling photos. The presence or absence of a caption doesn't really matter.

  3. #3

    Default

    I agree with jed.
    One-North Explorers
    | Leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but photos |

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Bukit Batok West Avenue 2
    Posts
    1,734

    Default

    Hee Hee.... But My photos are that bad that I need captions.... Hee Hee...

  5. #5

    Default

    wierd
    i rem starting a similar thread.
    NO ONE replied. does my credibity has to do with ppl replying to the thread? wierd.

    i dont believe in captions
    if u talk in strictly photography terms.

    (not newspaper/magazines/etc...)
    Illumn|Facebook| Canon 5D Mark II | 16-35mm 2.8L | 24-70mm f2.8L | 85mm 1.8 | Strobist

  6. #6
    BenJR
    Guests

    Default

    Hi guys


    I will agree about not needing to post captions. The picture should stand for itself and if it doesnt move the viewer, then I have failed..

    I am however, for details like location, lens,film,used as such.

    cheers

  7. #7
    Unregistered
    Guests

    Default

    Originally posted by quackaroo
    wierd
    i rem starting a similar thread.
    NO ONE replied. does my credibity has to do with ppl replying to the thread? wierd.

    i dont believe in captions
    if u talk in strictly photography terms.

    (not newspaper/magazines/etc...)
    time and place for everything.

    i caption those pics i took with frens. with funny comemts etc.

    but other things i dont caption.

    i take more scenery and macros with my digicam (newbie newbie!) and i love the freedom which a digicam gives me.

    though my toy cam cant preview pics, it doesnt matter. i just take a few more. one thing im still trying to get the hang of is FLASH. cos sometimes when u use the flash, the subject is over-exposed. yet other times when i think its bright enuff the pics come out dim. photo editing helps, but i'd rather not do it.. rather time consuming leh........

    maybe a G2 would be better? played with my fren's G2. liked it. powerful flash (tried in the office, so dont know abt night shots though..)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •