First of all Happy Birthday Rhowan!
Nice clear shot, lots of great detail in the eyes and hair, though not enough to distract.
Like the way the fluffy collar fades into the background.
(Scary how quick time passes... mine are now 4 and 2... *sigh* seems like only yesterday...)

Great shot Dave, and Happy Birthday Rhowan! She looks very mature for a 7 year old! In the original shot, her eyes look rather lifeless, but you've done a great job of bringing them to life here.
By the way, how's the new wheels?!

Lovely shot. Great tones, and nicely composed. Happy birthday to her!

Wow, that is a stunning post processing job. This is very inspirational, I will visit this picture a lot as a reminder of what can be done to an ordinary picture with some great vision and a little post work. Nice Job David.

Happy Birthday Rhowan! Every day more beautiful!
Great shot Dave. Great postprocessed!

Dave, it's amazing how far you've come from the first shots. I was browsing through the first 20 or so and I couldn't believe the difference. Congratulations and thank you for your continuous inspiration!
Titus

intriguing. powerful. :)

Gorgeous - love her freckles - never noticed them before - very sweet.

Great Shot Dave, and Happy Birthday Rhowan. You seem to have achieved a slightly different skin tone in this one then many others of Rhowan. Did you use a different channel then usual when converting it to B&W? The processing really brings out her beautiful eyes. Great job as usual.

Really beautiful

Excellent photography. I cannot help feeling that this is a fashion photography and it could be found the cover of Vogue.

Oh this is just great!!!!! Perfect!!!

beautiful portrait ! - did you try to leave the eyes in color ?

A significant improvement over the original IMO. It's great work.

Intense. As shots go this is the sort of image ?(and your night photography and HDR work) that I like, I can't relate to the flotsam and jetsum images you like to post.

I'm surprised at how straight forward the PP is. The result is quite startling, almost soul piercing.

"Daddy where did the birthmark by my lip go in this shot?" ... "No need for that honey... You can't be a supermodel if you have imperfections! And I won't let your imperfections ruin my reputation... Besides, I left the bags under your eyes in, isn't that enough?"

PS: She's a beautiful girl naturally. Way to warp their mind early daddy...

Way to go to all you dumbass viewers too, egging this "work" on... "ah this is magical... this is sooooooooooo great... it's incredible, it touched my soul. WOOOO... yay way to make a crappy old crap crap shot look almost (but not quite) like your typical magazine bs.. gives me hope to make my own crappy crap look profitable" ;)

I really gotta stop coming here...

the usual guy (aka miklos): if I had a dollar for every time you've said "I really gotta stop coming here" (or variants thereof) I'd be able to retire ;-)

And Rhowan doesn't have a birthmark, it was a scratch on her face.

Weird. My daughter turned seven yesterday (Aug 28). :-)

Dave: I'm sure you'll soon be able to retire off the millions you're making on your genius photo skills ;) ... Also, not only are you a good photographer, you're a good liar too. That used to be a cute little perfectly round brown scratch there... Anyway it's not a big deal.. it wasn't to begin with, I just found it funny.. but now... why lie? :) *thumbs up*

As someone mentioned, while the original shows her real age of seven, the processed version shows a girl who could be double that age, maybe even more. Scary...

Really awesome shot! Great tones and nice composition!!!

Really nice portrait!

Lovely sereen look. Love the framing.
I, for me, would have liked some more punch to the image...on the other hand.. of course a lovely lady like this is best suited potraied a bit soft like this...the light caresseing the skin...

Umm, Miklos/usual guy... if you consistently have such a problem with the shots that Dave produces... why do you come back? And why the constant attacks?
Unless you're in politics , if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all!

Beautiful portrait.

a brilliant portrait. i like the highkey processing and the soften bw tones. great one!

As usual you do a great job with the tonality. But I see no reason not to center the portrait. As it is, it looks like you're leaving space for ad copy. If I cover up that huge white space on the left, it looks more like a portrait.

Also, I wish you hadn't removed so much of the fly-away hair; they really added character.

This picture was great. I do like it. It is beautiful and nice composed.

Very cool shot David and Happy Birthday to Rowan. As a regular visitor to your blog, I feel as I have seen her grow in front of my own eyes.

I have your page as my home page. Every time I see this shot, it worries me. I thought gosh she's grown. I asked my husband how old he thought she was. He replied 17. I have to say Dave, that this is not my favourite photo. She does not look like a little girl of 7 years. Her hair is far too severe.

She is obviously used to having her photo taken, but I much prefer the more natural ones.

This does not work for me.

Very nice portrait ! great B&W ...

That was an excellent portrait!
She i looking directly at us, eyes are pin sharp and even sparkling! She has a "Mona Lisa" expression that is hard to read; an expression that makes us wonder.........which is great!
We also like the composition/crop - brilliant that you have avoid to put her in the middle of the frame.
Excellent - just excellent!

Miklos - are you off the medication at the moment - one minute you come here being nice and the other you come here being a complete child. Why don't you take a long hard look at yourself and get a life - or a chromasia tutorial.

She looks tired.

Beautiful portrait ! Her look is so captivating...
The treatment is just amazing ;D

Regarding Miklos/usual guy 's comments:..... Oh my! Why does he keep coming back for more if he doesn't like it? Jealous?

Regarding the photo: another amazing portrait. I would love to see the original for inspiration.

The original is there at the top. Great portrait as well. Thanks

A really great photo. The original seems lacklustre compared with the finished image. The extension is great.

There are so many birthdays this time of year. Heaps of Virgos. Maybe it's due to the love making at christmas time...

Seriously beautiful portrait! Looks great in B/W.

is this a photography blog or a post processssssssing blog just a question prehaps a poll would help decide. sometimes i get frustrated when more work goesinto the post processing than the actual pic.. another question where were all these great photographers before photoshop??? had a look through here and it is a visual experience, but the question arises again photography blog or post processssing blog i have my opinion

Thanks for all your birthday wishes - they have been passed on to Rhowan!

Audrey: I know what you mean about this photo making her appear older, but I see this differently, as I know she was having a 'Princess Tea Party' for her friends and they all were in princess fancy dress. Her older sister put Rhowan's hair up so she could wear a tiarra, and you can just make out the top of her dress and cape in the photo. It was a typical little girls party with pretty dresses, pink balloons etc!

redge: She was a little tired. Her birthday was the day before her party, and all the excitment wore her out!

Sean: Happpy birthday to your daughter :-)

gud photo,but sge does not look seven more like 13 or 14.when i compare the two images.i get a different message from both of them

Beautiful girl. Exceptional image. Iinteresting crop shape! Really Nice.

Ok let's set the record straight here... The bad photography found here is only part of the problem. The other part, the bigger part is ... YOU ... Nobody in specific, but everyone as a whole.

Allow me to explain...

I used to come here even when the photoblog world was just a baby. People kind of helped each other out because nobody really knew what to make of the "new craze"... It was exciting. The boom of digital photography... Some people just started shooting with whatever digital piece of crap they could get their hands on, and post processed the hell out of the photos to make them look pleasing. I used to be one of those people. After a few months that got old. At this time I didn't even know what "aperture" was, but I've had a blog up for a few months now... So I started going backwards.. took some basic classes, did a lot of work with film cameras, started understanding "photography" ... The medium doesn't matter really, I know that that's not what makes a photograph "good". I just wanted to understand what I was doing.

What most of you don't seem to understand is that photography is not only about pretty colours... That's icing on the cake. Photography needs to tell a story. As bad as my photos may be, as much as they entice some of you idiots to email me saying "WHY DID YOU TAKE YOUR COMMENTS OFF, AFRAID TO BE CRITICIZED?" ... they do tell a story to ME and a select few others in whose lives the pictures actually mean something.. they're not for YOU. That's why there's no online comments. There haven't been any for a while either... I frankly don't care what you have to say about them. Those who need to can still comment in their own way. I've matured over the years and come to realize what matters to me. I don't need an "oh my god that's gorgeous" comment or "great composition"... I value the "oh yeah, remember that time?" or "man that was great" comments a lot more.

This site, on the other hand, feels the exact opposite. It feels like a site that was made with pretty colours and words like "...as always let me know what you think.." to draw you in and get you to consume. To generate traffic which in turn generates profit. "Oh man this is great, if I buy those tutorials I will be just as awesome and popular as this..." Wake up! Those tutorials are FREE on the net if you really need them, you just need to spend a bit of time looking for them.. Or how about LEARN TO TAKE PICTURES so you wouldn't NEED to bandaid your photos into "digital art" .. turning them into something completely different than what the original purpose might've been.... Put some THOUGHT behind the friggin shot before you press the button...

Take this bastardized photo we're commenting on right now, for example, and compare it to the original version. What the HELL is the original version trying to say? Without the commentary I wouldn't have known that it was a birthday shot. It's just a bad portrait. A snap. So..............it needs to be postprocessed to become visually pleasing for you braindeads that don't want to think about anything but expect your daily dose of "awesome"... Let's make her look older, make her fit today's ideal of what "pretty" is... This world is fucked up... and THAT is what gets me going...

I really don't know why I keep coming back.... I think I'm just as braindead as the next. I mean I repeat myself at least once a year, but nothing changes... Dave still shoots in aperture mode (except this shot surprisingly--or so it says), he still says shit like "well i went archive raiding and worked this one to be OK" or "As you can see, I exposed to the right, to maximise the amount of data in the original capture" (what the hell does that mean?) or "I came back today but most of the shots were crap" ... And the mesmerized numb-minded comments just keep rolling in... Come on people... I don't understand how something like this photo gets the "incredible" or "exceptional image" votes? Can someone explain it to me? Is it because his blog is more popular than yours? Is it pity? I mean I've said this before: I respect Dave wholeheartedly as a father and a family man... I just have a beef with this crap.

Anyway I've taken up enough bandwidth, but I'd love to continue this off the air, for any of you that don't want to voice your opinion publicly, or want to threaten me with something... maybe send the cops after me for being obnoxious and speaking my mind... or those that feel the need to defend Dave in any other way, even though I already said I'm not intentionally "attacking" Dave, I'm more conflicting with the mind numbing idea of this "cult" that he just happens to be the ring leader of... anyway i welcome your letters: miklos.bacso@gmail.com

Happy Birthday Rhowan! Great portrait of her David. Thanks for referring to the tutorials as to how you got achieved the desired effect. Did you use any extraction tools to place the image on the white background?

didn't bother to read entire predictable comment left by usual guy/aka miklos/aka xxx-xxxx!!??

miles- from my point of view, david's blog is the most educational, absorbing, inspiring, communal, creative, consistent, informative photography blog in the world. bar none. and has been for many many years.

miklos or whoever you are, perhaps you need to restrict your consumption of alcohol/drugs/beatings before your visit, or wait until after a therapy session. personally, i don't care if you choose to personally attack me- i'm halfway across the world. plus i consider the source.

you are creepy beyond creepy. perhaps you shouldn't visit again. EVER!! those of us who visit david every day, have for the most part, an impartial point of view. if i personally don't like something, i simply don't comment or respectfully critique. the key word here is RESPECT.

david, i commented when you originally posted this shot. think this is a brilliant portrait, as are most of your portraits. you could publish a book of them at this point and i hope you do.

just wanted to say that since my original visit to this portrait, in my subsequent visits, i get a Peter Pan read. don't know if Peter Pan is even a popular story in UK. anyway, there is strength/resolve/determination only an innocent face can display, coupled with her femininity mildly suggested by the fur on her shoulders. hope Rhowan doesn't mind the analogy. it's really a compliment to say her boyish side shows through. i have to say i don't agree w. those who choose to say a one second photo appears too old for her age.

i believe children, pehaps more than adults on occasion, often carry an eerie wisdom of ages, soulfullness, in their looks, in their eyes. sometimes even babies.

and when we capture the insight of youth peering out at the world they're not so sure of, perhaps even pissed with, we are the lucky ones to have done so. congrats, david! :) and H.B. Rhowan! :)))

Wow. Usual guy, criticism is good, but do you realise how incredibly bitter and spiteful your posts sound? Maybe you do actual have something constructive to say about Dave's photography but whatever that might be it just gets lost amongst the bile and personal attacks.

Yes, I know you said your post wasn't a personal attack, but using language like "braindead", "crap", "bastardised", "mind numbing", "fucked up" and "cult" does not make for an objective critique and don't pretend otherwise.

Finally, I for one, object to your assumption that if anyone likes Dave's work they must be braindead. I don't like all of Dave's pics and I'm not sure where I sit on the photography vs post processing issue. But art is incredibly personal and what one person views as rubbish another sees as a masterpiece. Thats just the way of the world. So get over it.

Next time you post, lets see you critiquing the subject matter with intelligence and objectivity.

Miklos/Usual Guy: I'm finding it difficult to find the root cause behaind your "rant" (which, frankly, is how it comes across).

I've also been following this blog since the early days and have a couple of points to note. Firstly, I don't believe I've ever seen Dave suggest that he is a great photographer in the vein of a Cartier Bresson or a Robert Frank - he is simply someone who set himself the difficult task of posting an image a day and trying to make that image interesting or engaging. Personally I think he has succeeded admirably. I may not like every image, but I think the vast majority of them show undoubtedly that he has a very good eye for a photo. Following these from the beginning I would also say he has grown and improved over the years, although I accept that that is a very subjective opinion and you may not agree.

It is also clear that Dave has really mastered the use of post processing to bring out the best in a photo. This is something that seems to upset you, particularly when he transforms what might appear to be a sow's ear into a silk purse. Your argument is that photography is "not only about pretty colours". The key word here is "only", photography is many things to many people, and there must be room for images that simply give pleasure for pleasure's sake. You also say "Photography needs to tell a story". Why? Photography certainly 'can' tell a story but it doesn't 'need' to do anything of the sort - you're simply imposing your own idea and suggesting that it is a universal truth.

I think Dave has discovered that one of his talents is to be able to produce a very commercially viable type of photography, one which is easily accessible by a wide audience and which provokes an instant response. I don't think that this side of his work is any less legitimate than some of his more 'serious' stuff (for want of a better word). The fact that he is able to make a living from it gives him all the more justification for pursuing it. I can't help but feel that you resent the fact that his images sell, perhaps this is something you wish you were able to do with your own (self-styled) "meaningful" photography?

The tutorials are what they are, very useful guides to using Photoshop to achive specific results. Clearly a lot of work goes into each of them and I for one feel that this effort deserves to be rewarded. I certainly feel that I am getting value for money so I can't relate to your criticism. For me these might help me to tweak a photo I put a great deal of though into (maybe to get the most out of the detail or dynamic range), but if people want to take it to more extreme levels to create "digital art" then who are you to condemn them? This is not a zero sum game, a "winner takes all" situation - there is room for us all.

As for the present photo, you dismiss it as a mere "snap". Well, Elliot Erwitt was more than happy to describe his photos as "snaps", but then perhaps unlike you he had learned not to take himself or his photography too seriously. As a hobby this is supposed to be enjoyable, unless perhaps you believe that you are a tortured artist unappreciated in your own time?

If looking at these pictures makes you angry perhaps it is time to stop indulging your masochism and move on. It is egotistical to think that you can (or should) change the way Dave shoots just because it doesn't please you. Live and let live.

Thanks everyone.

Miklos: I've said this before - if you don't like what I do, don't look at it. I know you've got it into your head that (somehow) chromasia is more than it seems, but it's just a website – with a blog, some tutorials, and some other stuff. You don't have to visit if you don't want to.

wow, very nice!

Hello David,
I absolutely love your photo's and post-processing..it is SO helpful to see what can be achieved after taking the photo...
Rhowan is captivating, and I delight in seeing her look SO different in each shot.
I really like the website, and tutorials, and please keep up the truly excellent work.
Have a great w/e in Barcelona.
Sara.

Superb portrait

Strange to put a formal portrait like this into landscape format, but it works, and I have done this on occasions myself. I like the conversion and high-key post processing.

After all the commentary and generalisations made by miklos I thought I'd take the trouble to have a look at some of his work. David has already posted the link. To be fair, a few of the shots are pretty good. Most of them are, at best, average. If they tell "a story", then it it's only for him and those close to him. That's fair enough, but he really isn't in a position to criticise others if he won't tolerate it of his own work and is certainly not in a position to presume to tell others how to take photos. I'm not even close to what I would consider competent with a camera (or post-processing,for that matter, that's why I come here and take what I need from the tutorials) but I really have taken better, regularly (even in manual mode(gasp!)). I think Mattp has hit the nail on the head with his "tortured artist" observation. I've met plenty of them over the years, totally convinced of their own talent and unable to understand why those they can't shout down don't agree with them.
For the record, I don't particularly like todays shot. It's a little sterile for my tastes.
For those of you having a crisis of conscience over the whole pure/post-processed thing, I tend to think in these terms. Da Vinci made sketches before creating his masterpieces. Film-makers use special effects to help tell their "stories". Why should photographers be any different? If you want to avoid using any "helpers" in your photography, get yourself a pewter plate and some bitumen and go from there. Cheers.

I like it a lot!

Myklos, chill out mate. Whats the issue with post processing? "post processing" has been around since Daguerre and scarcely a photo of note hasn't seen a tweak between shutter and final output. Choice of film? D-76? Mixed at 1:1 or 1:3? 24C or 20C? Agitation 5 seconds every 30, or 10 seconds every 60? Paper? Pre-flashing? Light source? Grade? Toner? The principal is the same whether it's pixels or silver halide.

There is no "right way"; only the result counts. David has at least managed to carve out a recognisable house style or two, which is better than most manage. We all choose to shoot the subjects that move us, and while you can reasonably critique the resulting images, attacking the motivations behind them seems more than a little mannerless and pathetic.

magnifique portrait, quelle maitrise, j'adore