Titles are a funny thing, and somewhat contentious at the critique group. And it's not just the "a photo should stand on its own" opinion, either. I mean, sometimes they can, but sometimes they can't. My thoughts are mostly about how titles can change an image, but I'm also fairly firm on the idea that if I don't know what a photo should be titled then I don't really understand what the photo is about. In this case, though, it identity is less defined.

This photo was taken at the auto show, so it will appear in sets around that theme, either as part of an overview or as a subset looking at the marketing. In that context this photo gets titled "cargasm!" – a title stressing the over-the-top enthusiasm for, well, I'm not quite sure what. A lot of enthusiasm, anyway, So that's one photo.

I may show it at the critique group, a social organization where I have a moderately prominent role; I have it printed but haven't decided yet. In that case it's being shown as part of my overall body of work, but without the automotive context. For that I'll call it "extroverting!" where it becomes a personal commentary that might tell them something new about me. Same image, but the title and context are completely different.

Those two titles both work for me. Perhaps a different title would be interesting for a different audience. Normally I don't change them, but this isn't going to be a long-term portfolio piece, so I feel a bit more flexible on this one.