Treating photography as a 'fine art' form - should titles be a part of the picture?

particularly now in the age of photo digital manipulation

I don't really think that has any bearing on it one way or the other. Manipulation in the wet darkroom isn't any different. As for the larger question: artists working in every discipline have been assigning inscrutible names - whether as clumsy pretension, coyness, sly sophistication or what have you - for as long as they've been naming their art. I expect that at least one of the charcoal bison strutting his stuff on the walls of the Lascaux cave was titled "Ummanagunna, ugh!" (with a neolithic French accent, of course) whereupon one of the contemporary critics probably smacked the artist in the head with a club just to straighten him out.

More to the point, there are no rules. There is no legitimacy in any form of name for a work. Is the work intended to sell? The artist might consider whether or not the work's name will help in that effort, or contribute in the long run to the artist's reputation and marketability. Is the work made strictly for personal enjoyment? If so, then worrying about it is especially counterproductive.

Let me understand, Alan. Are you arguing for more thoughtful or helpful labeling of semi abstract or perhaps 'social commentary' images to help viewer better appreciate the rendering? Does this label then elevate the photo to a higher level of artistic personal expression then?

'legitimate' ? - absolutelly..

Photographs have become known by their titles as well. Many of the people who are now considered Masters have photographs that are readily identified by their titles - Moonrise for example. While I find the question interesting, I don't really see how this could be any different for a photograph than it would be for a painting. Regardless of reproducibility, the reproductions carry the same title and I, at least, feel that any photographer worth their salt makes a personal connection to their subject of they would not be photographing it. So, it stands to reason that placing a title that carries personal meaning would be completely logical.

- Randy

Much of photography's power lies in its ability to document a scene. And when we look at the scene, it's helpful if the title gives it a context. A sailor kissing a nurse is one thing, but if we know it's a celebration of VJ day in Times Square in 1945, we have information that provides context, and informs the viewer as to what they are actually seeing. I've always felt the best title is a place name and a date. But then I come from a social documentary, photojournalistic tradition. I suppose a pictorial shot, a red barn in a misty meadow, for example, is presented as a pretty picture, and the time and locale are not as important. Close ups of peeling paint that create abstract forms may do quite well as "unititled." On the other hand, if you want to sell a print, "Untitled #47" might be more helpful.

Language is more powerful than pictures, imo. I avoid titles. If I were showing and selling, I'd have to create identifiers, if for no other reason than for bookkeeping.

With "Darkness at the Break of Noon" am I supposed to hear Dylan's lyric, and is that supposed to enhance my appreciation of the image? Maybe it detracts, or what is more likely, overpowers the image, and it would be better if it were labeled Image 03 or the like.

Titles often give context, and I sometimes choose my titles carefully to provide the context that they need. Two examples come to mind:

Gods of the Harvest: A parody I did on the stone gods of Easter Island. The photo shows three enormous bails of hay in a field, which actually appear to have faces. Without the title, viewers would likely just see the photo as three bails of hay. The title forces them to study the photo to ascertain why I gave it that name.

Hatched: A photo of a fractured cast iron mooring float. It looks almost like a giant egg shell. One wonders what machine hatched from it. (OK, my mind works that way.) Without the title, the viewer might simply see a photo of an enormous rusty ball with a hole in it.

One might argue that the titles are necessary for clarifying what the photograph should already clearly show. However, I would argue that there are two elements to many photos (and I would argue to the better photos): what is there, and how it is perceived. Sometimes there's a subtle and somewhat private perception that the photographer wants to share, and the title is the way to do that. This is not unlike the caption to a cartoon. The messages of some cartoons are self-evident without captions, but most cartoons require captions and labels to describe the artists' often weird thoughts or to give context to the illustration. For instance, consider a Far Side cartoon of a plant with lots of people-shaped seed pods hanging from it. The caption: Manypeoplia upsidownia -- poking fun at taxonomists. Or perhaps a chemical cartoon -- a benzene ring structure with an added central carbon bonded to every other carbon of the benzene ring (and centered in the ring). Forget that this couldn't really exist. Caption: Merceded benzene. (It looks much like a mercedes hood ornament.).

Then of course there are the photos whose impact requires the absence of a caption. For instance this irreverent photo, which is a commentary on the nature of monuments to great men:

Without the title, viewers would likely just see the photo as three bails of hay. The title forces them to study the photo to ascertain why I gave it that name.

. . . Without the title, the viewer might simply see a photo of an enormous rusty ball with a hole in it.

While a good title can add extra layers of meaning to a photo, I think these quotes demonstrate the problem with many "meaningful" titles. The title doesn't force the viewer to do anything. Intriguing photos draw the viewer in, resonate with the viewer, and invite the viewer to give more thought to the meanings of the image; a good title can provide some insight into the author's intent. A "meaningful" title on a mundane photo doesn't make the photo itself interesting.

In my photography titles are very much important because the landscapes, for instance, show nothing new in a major part, to the world. So before I go outdoor to photograph I already have a title on my mind, a context and sometimes the concept too. Or more often, during photographing I invent the title or the context. Because when I'm out in the field, I usually don't know what I'll find there. Sometimes I invent titles just sitting in front of my computer working on something else. The names and the titles always come to my mind out of the blue, suddenly as a spark. I can't imagine having no titles on my photographs. I usually don't understand the title "Untitled" of painting or of the photo. My work is narrative with storytelling. It is a part of who I am, of my personality. The titles make them more authentic, having the identity and meaning which people often are looking after. Through my photography I want to be straight, clear in the storytelling. So people might understand the work or not, but in any case I don't want to leave people wondering or saying "We've seen that already. It's nothing new." Or something like that.

As for your title, yes, I like the title. Words are for me stronger than the images. Definitely.