Hi Dave, I really enjoy the lighting and color tone of this image. This type of landscape is not your usual either. I like the changes you are attempting and excited to read the Creative tutorial. Lately, I have been reading some work by David Tejada. He has some very interesting and usefully approaches for lighting.

Really interesting read. I am enjoying sharing the learning and discovery process of your new direction into the mysterious world of lighting...

I recognise this shot as being taken off the crescent of the Palm Jumeirah and have taken the same shot numerous times only to throw it away as even after processing, the image still looks so bland. You have really done an amazing job with this! :)

wow, great post processing. You squeezed the very best out of this image. bravo!

Once again, striking! The post processing takes the image from a boring everyday snapshot to something I'd actually hang on my wall. Bravo!

Chris: thanks. I met David Tejada in Dubai last November and was really impressed with his approach to lighting.

Jason: you're more than capable of carrying out the various steps that went into creating the final image (none of them were in the least bit complex) - you just need to concentrate on the process as a whole, i.e. working out how you want the final image to look.

Ben and Laszio: thanks :)

That's a lovely shot. The sort of shot that first drew me to Chromasia and the sort of shot that you're such an expert at finding and post-processing. The rocks now really jump out at you and the image looks beautifully clean.

beautiful!!!!!!!!!

David, the process of this image is brilliant and I'm so happy that creative Workflow #4 will be about this one. Will you even explain how did you modified the image? I love the colours. Feels could but the sun is breaking up. Great shot and process

Dave,

The shore! :) This is an exquisite piece. This is a great example of your artistic vision at work. You have been working with "artificial" light for years now, and the results are always well-crafted and wonderful art. Congrats on this one.

C.

The end result is great, however I'm much more in the 'get it right in the camera' group you describe above. Would have been great to have seen this taken with a set of ND grads, reflections controlled by careful polarisation, perhaps at a different time of day with softer light and providing some natural contrast (if the clouds and light had behaved at the right time of course!) and compared the end results side by side.

No question though that the end result is a great creative piece of work and your talents in post processing are spectacular.

love the end result. The post processing really pulls out the light, and you have given it a unique and luminous coloring. But I'm curious about your choice of crop... would love to see the whole image without the crop because in the original, despite the bland light, the clouds in the sky with the light behind is what's really interesting and dramatic to me.

David,

This is a wonderful image. I so admire your level of skill in post-processing. What a great goal you are setting for yourself and not easily achieved. I'm far away from such thoughts. The luminance and contrast you brought out in the water and rocks are so remarkable. Am I right in thinking that your approach is changing in that the image you capture in camera might appear even less like a final resultant image that the camera itself would have made, but rather it is closer to the artistic goal you seek through your previsualization? Still not sure if I got that question out quite the way I meant it. Seems like you are trying to see further down the line to the result and let that guide you even more at the time you fire the shutter than in the past. And I guess this will primarily be affecting your exposure biases, or do you also think focus and composition?

In other regards to this image, I'm struck by something in the difference between your capture and final result. I feel like the focal point in the original image is the bright patch of water, below the sunlight, near the horizon. Your crop seems to support that too, maybe. Though I love what you've done with the water and rocks, they seem to pull me away from this distant light on the water. I guess the result gives me more to look at, but I'm observing that now I'm less likely to take as much notice of the highly lit patch.

Anyway, you got me thinking more about it. I spent my whole lunch break considering this image. It sits way better with me than the food at Sonic Drive-in. So, good for both of us and thanks.

Thad

Mohamed: I'll be including the PSD file as part of the tutorial.

Paul: I agree, it would have been interesting to shoot the same shot in better light. Unfortunately though I didn't have time on my last trip to Dubai.

beeveedee: the decision to crop the image was made part way through the editing process, simply because I thought that the upper section of sky looked too bland in comparison to the rest of the image.

Thad: thanks. As for your question: in this instance, other than making sure that I got the composition right, my main aim was to expose as far to the right as possible to maximise the amount of data in the highlights. As I knew that the sky need a lot of work, this was essential, but the net result was that the original looked a bit washed out.

Your point about the focal point of the final image is interesting insofar as it was the bright light along the horizon that attracted me to this shot in the first place. That's it's now less prominent is more a consequence of the fact that the remainder of the image is now more interesting rather than any decision on my part to lessen its impact.

I just realised that I didn't read your question properly ...

"Am I right in thinking that your approach is changing in that the image you capture in camera might appear even less like a final resultant image that the camera itself would have made, but rather it is closer to the artistic goal you seek through your previsualization? "

No, not exactly. There are two things you need to bear in mind: the aesthetic end point you're aiming for and the way in which you need to optimise the exposure in order to ensure that you can get there without degrading the image to an unacceptable degree. In most cases this means shooting an image that's even further away from your goal than the camera would achieve on its own. The key thing here, as I mentioned in my last comment, is the quality of the data you capture, and in order to maximise this you need to expose as far to the right (on your histogram) as possible. The reasons for this are technical, but what you need to bear in mind is that if you underexpose by one stop you lose around 50% of the data you could have captured, a two stop underexposure discards 75% of the data, and so on.

Let me know if that answers your question.

Okay David,

Add mind-reading to your list of talents. I couldn't ask the question quite the way I intended (Texas springtime side effect) yet you told me exactly what I was wanting to understand. Namely, "In most cases this means shooting an image that's even further away from your goal than the camera would achieve on its own." That's really close to what I was trying to say. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Plus, knowing your goals in the image now I see what you mean. The emphasis of the dominant element in an image must decrease as the other elements are emphasized more. It's a balance you handled very well.

Cheers
Thad

The comments-dialoge is just as interesting as the image !!
I always find myself admiring your B/W-toned images, or as in this case--your global-toned image. I just don't seem to "see it" in my mind's eye. Here again you have you have given us a winner !!!. I love the three zones of texture here: soft (the sky), slick/reflective (the sea), and crinkle-y (the rocks.) Can't wait for CW#4.

What a striking and beautiful transformation! Well-done!

once again we see just how poor you are as a photographer I mean the unprocessed image is very poor - but you save it by your post processing skills what would we do without photoshop

Dan: seeing the possibilities that a dull scene presents comes with practice. Just shoot and process, and see what you can come up with :)

Eugene: thanks.

Ed: I think you kind of missed the point here. The original image was shot for post-production, hence it's a step along the road, not an end product in its own right.

David , Maybe I have missed the point, I might be old school regarding photography where you try as best you can at the time of pressing the shutter to capture the scene that you are looking at.... Are we not photographers ? Where were all these wonderful photographers before photoshop ? .... are we moving into the area of impressionism .. sure if thats the case swap your camera for a paintbrush and paint away... This is not the first time ( and im sure it wont be your last) that you have presented a sloppy photo and used your post processing skills to cover it up.

before I sound bitter or twisted Let me congratulate you on your blog which I visit daily its one of the few that I do visit daily. I would just like to see a more pure approach to the photography aspect on the blog and less of your photoshop skills.

Maybe the should just be a section for photoshop skills and one for photography because they seem to have moved away from each other ...remember the photographer that was sacked from a big photo agency for using photoshop to alter the image.

Ed: for me, post-production is a part of the same process, i.e. it's not something different from photography. As for the 'sloppy photo': the light was bad, yet I knew that if I exposed to the right I'd be able to create something like the image you see here. Put another way: you say it's sloppy photography, I say it's the first (technically correct) step towards producing the image I envisaged. As such I think we're probably going to need to agree to disagree on this topic as we seem to have a completely different view of what's going on here.

And you don't sound bitter and twisted, just rather dogmatic and somewhat narrow-minded about this craft that we call photography. For me, it's the image that counts, not how it was created.

Hi,

I was pretty much done with my comments to this string but now it's getting stirred up anew and I'd love to be a part of it.

Ed: I also love to see what kind of quality comes out of my camera without any alteration (or rather, post-processing). However, I've discovered that for me this was never dogma or even hobby but anxiety and laziness about getting away from thinking about how something would be handled in the darkroom and forcing myself to belly-flop into the ocean of computer-editted photography.

Now, if by "old school" you mean dropping your film off at a photo finishing lab and then picking it up later to see how they look, then yes this is a very different approach. In that setting we allow a person of undetermined qualification make all the decisions (or perhaps they consider nothing at all) about our images. We just happily take whatever comes out of their machine or enlarger at face value, pay for it, then go on our way and consider how to make our images better in our cameras at the critical moment of capture. We might make a huge difference if we had more control of the printmaking (now called post processing) to get to the final result we want.

Or, if by "old school" you mean "the way Ansel did it" then I'm going to be disagreeing with you completely. We can only speculate what Ansel Adams would have thought of digital capture and post-processing. After seeing a comparison of both his darkroom processed, finished images and his plain, unedited contact sheets, I now believe he would have turned a cartwheel and danced a jig to have the kind of controls we have today. I suggest you find a pair of his images to compare. Find the contact print for Moonrise at Hernandez and compare it to the one we all have etched in our minds. You might be shocked and disappointed when you see what he actually captured on the film. Don't let it burst your bubble, though. Here's the point: when he jumped out of his car and quickly set up his camera and almost haphazardly took that image, he knew exactly what he needed and it couldn't possibly look good straight out of the camera. He saw in his mind the final product and knew it would require a "sloppy" looking capture to get on the film what he needed to make the final print we all know.

The biggest difference I see here is that AA would have said that he calculated the in-camera image to achieve the DENSITIES of silver across the film that he needed to get to the final product he knew would be possible. Dave is using the term MOVING TO THE RIGHT and CONTROLLING LIGHT to refer to the same thing. The right side of the histogram of an image is the highlight side of the exposure and by carefully balancing the threat of blown highlights with structure and detail in highlights, he ensures that his shadows also retain the maximum amount of structure and detail so there is the least lost in the image. He is also discussing flash photography on other posts to acheive even greater balance control on this issue in portraits. It's essentially the same thing.

Dave, please correct me if I'm misrepresenting you here. I just feel like this is near a zone system approach to this scene and the approach is currently uniquely your own.

Dave, perhaps an interesting demonstration of this might be to post two sets of before and after shots of a scene (sometime in the future). One pair as you would have metered it before this new approach and one pair using your new mindset. Might be a way for you to evaluate for yourself as well.

I'm personally a fan of re-invention when it can lead to better thing like a new way of expression.

Finally, a quote. "Pictures and photography are not about realism" Ansel Adams. He went on to explain it's about how you want to portray what you saw.

Thanks for providing the opportunity to do some word expressing. Now I'm going to find my camera and go capture a few thousand words.

Thad

Thad: I agree with all your points (bar one, more of which below), especially your point about Ansel Adams - it's an example I often use when confronted with the photography/photoshop discussion. The only point I would disagree on is that the 'expose to the right' maxim isn't just something I do - it's quite a common way of ensuring that you capture the maximum amount of data with your initial capture. That said it is an approach I use more frequently than a lot of photographers I know, simply because it works for me, i.e. it's an integral part of my workflow.

Ed/Thad: the contact print for Moonrise, Hernandez can be seen at the bottom of this page:

http://notesonphotographs.eastmanhouse.org/index.php?title=Adams,_Ansel_/_Moonrise,_Hernandez,_New_Mexico#_ref-16

You might also be interested to read that Adams was still working on the post-production of the negative TWO YEARS after he initially developed it:

"The negative was quite difficult to print; several years later I decided to intensify the foreground to increase contrast. I first refixed and washed the negative, then treated the lower section of the image with a dilute solution of Kodak IN-5 intensifier. I immersed the area below the horizon with an in-and-out motion for about 1 minute, then rinsed in water, and repeated about twelve times until I achieved what appeared to be optimum density. Printing was a bit easier thereafter, although it remains a challenge."

I like the final IMAGE, nice prep work in the capture.

i think it's a shame to use $5,000 of equipment to produce images which can be achieved with $79.99 digital point and shoot cameras.

sa: I suspect, given the nature of the adjustments that were made to this image, that a $79.99 digital point and shoot wouldn't have been all that good a choice: the amount of noise generated by its sensor would have seriously compromised the final image.

Absolutely love it, both the image and discussion thanks Dave, Thad and Ed !!

Thanks Steve :)

Great PHOTOGRAPHY Dave :o) Nice to see things don't change here LOL

Hi Dave. I really like processed image and the enhancements you've made. They certainly help to change the mood and look/feel of the original (RAW?) image. I’ve only just started to subscribe to your blog but It seems like this discussion on your enhancements have stirred up the old photographic debate:- right in camera / capture 'as is' vs manipulation thro' Photoshop.

To me it doesn't whichever approach photographer use, there is an accomplished skill in each approach that I can appreciate and admire. Let’s face it since the early days of photography manipulation has taken place be it pre or post production. Although it seems like a ‘natural’ image, Henry Peach Robinson’s famous “Fading Away” photograph from 1858 is actually a composite image from several negatives. Yourself & Thad have demonstrated that even one of the most famous exponents of photography manipulated his work in the darkroom.

Be it dodging, burning, solarising or toning prints in the darkroom to altering your developer solution, concentration, temperature or development time to create different effects on your negatives - it’s all some kind of manipulation. Heck even putting on a polarising or ND grad filter is a manipulation of the natural subject.

Photoshop’s been around for 20 years now and whilst perhaps it’s only really truly taken off since the consumer digital camera revolution in the 90’s, it does seem strange that enriched use of it may still be frowned upon or seen as bogus photography. Why should traditional manipulation methods from traditional photography be held in higher esteem and seen as being more legit or ‘true’ to photography, than digital manipulation methods from digital photography. If photography is to be considered as an art and not a science then there has to be the artistic freedom to use the tools available to you to create the image that you envisage. Just as it is acceptable to have many styles or approaches in art paintings (contemporary, cubism, impressionism, pop art etc) parity must be given to the many approaches in photography be it traditional film, digital, digital + PS enhancements, digital + PS manipulation, HDR etc.

You’re probably never going to turn a dog of a photo into a fox, but if you can make it less of a mongrel and therein it becomes a keeper, surely we’re all better for it?

fantastic! i love the mood here ....

David: this debate surfaces every once in a while, and while I think the arguments are partially valid, like you I think they miss the point - particularly in terms of the assumptions that are made about conventional photography, i.e. that nothing much happens after the shutter is pressed. And you're right, turning a complete dog of a photo into a fox isn't possible, no matter how skilled you are with Photoshop. I should know, I have thousands of the damn things ;)

Yeah, nice light and composition!
Kind of surnatural spirit on that pic

a little late back to this compelling discussion that has probably died down now... Just wanted to add that this discourse here reminds me that I've been thinking of late that while photography is still photography, I've begun to think of digital photography as a very different entity from film. I reflected recently on how much of a purist Galen Rowell was in his attitude of only minimal enhancements to his imagery, and wondered with the rise, and primacy of post-production in digital photography how he would weigh in on a discussion like this.

I believe that we have come to *expect* to see some sort of treatment to photos now, whether enhanced saturation, or toning or even HDR treatments, and that any photo without that is unfinished or second-rate. (Regrettably, this puts an added burden on me because I never feel my photos are "done" until I can enhance them in post, and so my "job" is never done—there's always some photo I want to get around to working on, and it's not my day job!)

But that pushing of photography thru digital post-processing has changed the look of photography to me beyond just image composition to interpretation, to art. When I look at 20-year old photo magazines, there's a vibrance and variety of style in today's imagery that was missing in the old photography. And the skills we see in post-processing is what sets apart the masters (among them, DJN) from the masses, much as Ansel's work in the darkroom set him apart in his day.

Bottom line of what I'm trying to work out in words here is that, to me, digital photography is not just the capture anymore. It's the interpretation of a scene, the representation of the photographer's vision that we see these days in the final, post-processed image. And because of that, maybe the masses will recognize photography more as an art than before.

so beautiful!

To me this debate between the "old" and the "new" way of taking pictures sounds a bit "musty"; I have been a photographer for the last 35 years and since then I have always heard similar confrontations as it happened when Automatic Exposure, Automatic Focusing and other technical improvements were introduced.
For those who are missing the pureness of shooting with film vs. the artificiality of the digital post production, I would like to remind how we used to "post produce" using films and prints: under/over exposing the film to under/over processing it to obtain different contrast/saturation/tonal range/grain levels. Not to mention all the darkroom printing techniques that I am sure all those "old" way supporters are not considering as "post production". I mean, even in the "good old film days" we often and/or always pressed the shutter button thinking of all the changes to be done later.
The difference is in the technology we had available at the time.
And, certainly, in a very similar way there was (as there is nowadays) a big difference between shooting a bad image that needed to be “fixed” in the darkroom and an image precisely meant to be “completed” in the darkroom.