Allowing objects to speak without supervision runs the risk of major miscommunication. A metaphor may mean one thing to the first person and find entirely different meanings among each of the rest. I have erred on the side of the literal rather than the obscure in the pictures above.
Presenting them in black and white was a considered decision. In colour there is just too much information – the photograph appears complete, in and of itself. That’s just my opinion and I’m aware that it is not shared by other photographers.
The theme is evidence of life, where the remnants of passage are visible even though the individual responsible has moved on; they leave behind their traces, some subtle, others gross.
Apart from the b&w rendering there is nothing technically unusual about the pictures. I have made minor adjustments to the RAW files by setting the highlights and shadows to min and max respectively, then adjusting black/white points to just below clipping.
Then slight crops were applied, followed by simple b&w conversion. I generally end up using the Photoshop adjustments because I get lost in Nik and Topaz. A little bit of sharpening, saved as full size JPG’s (for printing) and low-res copies for the blog.
I don’t like them. Not because they are technically or compositionally inferior (although they aren’t perfect for sure) but because a series of metaphorical pictures like this seems dreadfully contrived. It’s not something I would consider as a personal project, although including metaphor, allegory and analogy does interest me, but not as the whole reason for the picture.
I could have attempted a series which employed these mechanisms as incidental components but I know I would have spent far too much time fretting about it; I understand that these are intended to be exercises not opus magna.