What an interesting discussion. I feel a bit like Prufrock: "like a patient etherized upon a table." But that's more interesting than discomfiting.
I have a couple of comments to add, first off that those who see my images as too saturated or over sharpened, may simply have monitors differently calibrated than mine (I don't think that's a problem with the images in my actual book). Admittedly, I push the boundaries with saturation, although I think I'm generally quite careful not to go too far (after all, as I said in the essay, I do like that Cibachrome look).
Second, John Camp's comment that my image structure is Hopper-like is very interesting. That's an aspect of Hopper that I apparently absorbed so well that I haven't really noticed it. But I do, in fact, search out what I think of as the geometry of a scene or subject, its inner structure or framework, and compose within that. I've always attributed that to Cezanne. So thank you John for the insight.
Finally, I always (or almost always) photograph with my camera set on "Program." William Carlos Williams said, "There is the eye; there is the object. The poem is what happens in between." Change "poem" to "photograph" and that about sums up my course on how to take a photograph. Also, I'm credited with having said, "The camera is a save button for the mind's eye." What this is all leading up to is that I want my camera to get between me and what I'm photographing as little as possible when I'm taking a photograph. I want a good enough camera that I don't have to worry too much about image quality at the same time that I don't want it getting in my way. As I said, I want the camera to simply be a save button once I've gotten everything figured out in my head.