Todd - re. your question about titling...it is mostly an ephemeral addition and often times useless addition. Background. People have always loved stories, making up stories, and telling stories - this will never change. Many aspiring photographers are no different - and will add a "layer of meaning" on top of a visual work in an attempt to "help the story/visual story along". Problems arise (not necessarily in your post per se) when the title is doing the "heavy lifting" in attempt to force or add juice/importance/critical information/merit - to a photographic image - where there is no/or little juice/importance/critical information/merit. For many photographers one may sense that they are more involved in a mental narrative and/or creating one - than actually looking at what may/may not be in front of them - and this is born out in their titling day after day. For landscape type work e.g., sometimes just a simple place name/time of day can be useful as in an image by Galen Rowell..."Sunset over Machu Picchu". Does one really need any more verbal information for this image?...highly doubtful. As well, if one looks at work by, Edward Burtynsky, Sebasiao Salgado, Ansel Adams, Eliot Porter to use just a few familiar names...is it necessary for them to "tack on verbal narrative"?, again, highly doubtful. Oftentimes, viewers over time will add their own "made up name/story" for an artist's work - and this is worth noting - the possibility of letting the viewer assess and have the freedom to create their own internal story about the work. I think this sometimes the best approach as it allows a viewer to "quietly" be a a part of the visual creation...without the additional verbal chatter.