First, I agree with htbrown that an image should stand on its own and not require explanation...except when it does. I'm thinking of documentary-type images for those cases where explanation may be needed. Sometimes a title provides just enough information. For fine art, I like the idea that viewers should be free to make their own interpretation; each person responding differently, based on their own histories and interests.

Most of my own favorite photos from 2013 through 2017 were a combination of deliberate steps and reaction to what I stumbled upon (I don't remember much about how I approached photography prior to joining UHH).

The most pre-visualization I might do was to seek photo ops for a specific storytelling theme, such as hops or apple harvests. Then, I would drive around looking for scenes that would help tell those stories and compose individual shots accordingly.

Otherwise, my deliberate actions would usually be about seeking interesting light or weather conditions and then I think my sub-conscious takes over to capture whatever beautiful-to-me experience is there. Occasionally I'd see something with possibly a bit more substance, but most of my photos are not for deep thinkers

Here are two where I felt an emotion and clicked - no conscious thought whatsoever.

There is a great truth, that nothing happens in a vacuum. More importantly, things are contextual. Every thing that I end up perusing is always from a contextual point of view. From this I often find myself in a place that puts me at odds with the standard models of what is the general view of what is considered to be the 'correct' view of things. In photography I see a micro cosmos of this idea.

Though off the subject at hand some what but in a fashion this is quite truthfully right at the heart of the issue. Today has been designated by one small branch of photography, the alternative photographic process group, as Cyanotype Day. Workshops and discussions are underway to investigate and celebrate the 'modern' notion as to what the Cyanotype is for the community of alternative photographic working with this process. Yet all the recognized literature and opinions on the Cyanotype process are deeply flawed.

What to do about this situation? The answer is nothing. Why waste ones time and effort to try correcting the flawed ideas of an entire group? People become entrenched with their views and do not take kindly to some fellow telling them that 'the emperor has no clothes'. Some one will eventually will but that does not serve the needs of someone such as myself. After all this state fits nicely with another age old idea that 'It's no skin off my nose".

So, as I had said with the opening quote, Nothing happens in a vacuum. I did not come to this desire to create images from out of no where. The work came from a number of solid images where I looked into occurrences that were not based in traditional imagery.

Here are three photographic images that were made using an 8X10 view camera, on photographic color enlarging paper with a filter pack at the camera lens to correct for what was the proper color balance for the emulsions bias. The light source is tungsten (3200K) balance common to this paper material. All images are in focus and the lens in use is a 10 inch f12 process camera lens used for full color separation work.

After making the exposure the 8X10 sheet of color sensitive paper was subjected to a standard color processing, BUT at about 1/4 of the way through the processing the paper was re-exposed to light, often through a Wratten filter fitted over a lamp in a holder in the processing room. This process is known as the Sabattier Effect. So as to clarify, the Sabattier Effect has no relationship to the effect called solarization*.

In the first image all the scene appears to be un-sharp, the image was in sharp focus and the effect is associated to a little known phenomena that exhibits itself in what is found in Pin Speck Photography.

In the next image there is a critical sharp rendering with the de-construction of the image in the open shadow areas. What appears like noise in a digital image is due to other than a digital image capture because this is not a digital capture, but a traditional film type process.

In the last image we see the effect of the classic Sabattier Effect at almost perfect non-reversal of image but the Black Sun effect showing in the reflection of the light source showing in the large flat mirror and in the wall coverings that were aluminum foil.

Making these experimental images I explored the construct of the idea where images in color no longer need to adhere to traditional conventions for image making. This work was the stepping stones to the later images involving reality deconstruction that are part of the images found in the previous two posts, Day 68 and Day 69.

* solarization; This is also referred to as the Black Sun Effect (Ansel Adams used this phrase), the effect exhibits itself one a strong light source expose a light sensitive material to around one thousand times the base exposure for a seen. I have seen long exposures of interior scenes where a light bulb is lit and is in the view of the camera (the light bulb turns black). In the third posted image one can see this Black Sun Effect occurring in the strong light source seen as black in the reflection to the left side of the image.