I am looking at some photographs from Nevada taken earlier this summer and have been playing with different visual interpretations. This is part of the problem with me and software, too many choices, too much flexibility. What is great is that I can try pretty much anything, but that is also part of the problem. I find that less choice for me is better for my creativity.
I've been playing with different looks thinking about how they will look in print. Probably best to send out some test prints to see how they come back. At some point I would also like to send out for some inkjet prints, but I'll print them smaller on RA4 paper first, to settle on a look. Printing is really the only way I know if I am done with a frame, since I don't play with them after I have printed them, it is a good exercise in finishing.
Most of my motivation for different looks has been technical - I'm interested to see how the prints look when I press all the data into a smaller range of tonal values and if they can still be differentiated. The question is: how good is the print media? The influence is from Callaghan and Metzker. I know that I am thinking too much about technical and I have to move along to saying something.
Dropped of a couple of cameras at Kurt's - XT2 for a sensor cleaning, FE to get overhauled. That will be my third FE, but my other two already have film (one color, one b&w) in them and I am always thinking of what kind of project I would like to shoot with the FE - this will give me an extra camera to do so. This was a good way to stop myself from book shopping.
Read a few more pages in Criticizing Photographs and also looked at Rodchenko Photography 1924-1954. Criticizing Photographs has a lot of words. A bit academic. My take away so far is that criticism has many forms, many angles and is basically subjective opinion that is as different as the individuals that write them.
Rodchenko was interesting. There were several photographs that caught me - The Horse Races (1935) and The Pioneer Girl (1930). Powerful imagery.
"Technically, photography is so simple, so rapid, so essential in its application to science, life and technology, that it is still not considered worthy of being a prophet, even though as such it is immediate.
"While essential and accessible, photography is deprived of the possibility that allows us to recognize her artists of genius...
Photography has every right - it merits this - to be regarded with deserving attention and respect as the art of today." (1934)