In my mind, what it all comes down to is this: in buying a digital camera and setting your camera's settings to where they are, you've essentially bought into the notion that you can best express your artistic vision through post-processing a raw / RAW file.

Film photographers have equally bought their cameras and films according to how they want to express themselves. It just so happens that the film does the "post-processing" for them, with a fixed set of parameters. To adjust those parameters, ND filters and the like are necessary, since all adjustments have to happen before light hits the film.

I have my preferences, but I respect both equally! Good work as always.

I think you were extremely successful and at some point later on in my career i hope i can grasp a tasteful conversion like this, too often I take a picture knowing what can be achieved because of the thinking you mentioned above only to feel a little lost when I look at the blank canvass, I find this extremely frustrating lately as it has nothing to do with my knowledge of Photoshop as I have learnt a wealth of knowledge through my membership, it's just the decision making and final vision and making it all look as cohesive as this does.

Sorry for the ramble.

The artist is a visionary. The means to reach a vision are countless. It seems to me that your vision is realized through the body of your work. As for this one... love the processing, love the shore, love the way your work brings out the sky on the bit of sand and water... yup... I like it.

Photography is art. And as any art, it evolves. Modern photography is perceived by most as the whole process starting with pressing the shutter and ending with pressing the "publish" button in the browser. Whatever comes inbetween is essential part of the process as a whole. I understand that there might be opponents of this angle of view but to each her own.

I admire a lot the Art (with a capital A) that you prove to so masterfully handle with your ever more sofisticated and awing posts in this blog. Congrats.

Andy: yes, I agree, but it's also worth bearing in mind that a lot of changes can be made to an image in a traditional darkroom.

Simon: one of the things I often suggest to my students when they get stuck trying to work out how to process an image is to decide on a theme and then work towards it. For example, decide that you're going to process an image to evoke a cold, moody feeling - and then process it accordingly. Perhaps you could convert it to black and white, add a blue tone, add a heavy vignette, and so on. If you restrict yourself regarding the outcome you'll probably find that the post-production is quite a lot easier.

Carlos and Cristian: Thanks, and I couldn't agree more.

I would agree with your post, taking pictures starts way before you press that little button, I accept you may not always get the time particularly with reportage style shots but I've generally seen the image I want before the elements come together in that scenario.

This style of post is more relaxed but still requires that thought process that makes you pre-visualise the final image.

Hmm, guess you just summed up what I needed to know David. So now we have that out of the way, we can just go shooting this thursday. :) Seriously, this is exactly why I am taking a 1-2-1 class with you; to improve my "dark room" skills. In the old days we manipulated a lot as well in the dark room, and now we can do this more comfortably behind a pc with a cup of coffee instead of spending days in a dark hole sniffing chemicals all the time. And yes, maybe sometimes it is over the top for some, and Art for others. But I have always taken the approach that if you know how to overdo it, you can also moderate it. See you soon.

Michael: OK, suits me :) And I agree with your comments regarding post-production, though I'd tend to phrase it in terms of doing it well or doing it badly - the actual extent of the work that's carried out on an image is irrelevant. For example, I once had the chance to talk to Matt Hoyle about his work and asked him how he post-produced his portraits - which are absolutely fantastic. He told me that a typical image would have anywhere between 60 and 100 adjustment layers, many of which were targeted to a specific area of the image: the left iris, a mole on the cheek, and so on. The key thing though was that there was absolutely no way to reverse-engineer the images to identify or isolate these changes, simlpy because it was done so well. Anyway, I'm waffling, so perhaps we should continue the discussion later this week :)

You are successful on all points Mr. Nightingale !!
As a parallel comment, I have often said when asked about "how did I..."
First, close your eyes and *see* your image with your mind's eye, the camera is merely a tool to help you capture that image. It doesn't have an Ansel Adams button. (substitue your own visionary-photographer)

Personally, I love the way you see - with the end in sight. There are certain looks that just cannot be replicated with a camera, but if you can see the potential in what's in front of you, and then recreate it at home I believe there is just as much or more merit in that than in only creating in camera.

Funny thing, but for me the reason I always visit your blog is not just the photography. It's more about the combination between the photographs and the words. You've summed up so well in this post the debate about post-processing your images. Next time somebody asks about why do post-processing, I'll direct them to this post. :)

As for the image, I really like the warmth of it (although the initial impression is of a cold day)

It's amazing the difference between the original and the post production shot. It wouldn't have even dawned on me to try to work on this photo, but the end result is great. Nice work.

Having the stretch of beach just down coast from you I have exactly the same problems: often flat skies and featureless beaches, I've learnt a lot from you and others, along with my own experimentation. I'm now quite happy to come back with 'something to work on' rather than images that are instantly stunning straight out of camera - it's another fun and challenging part of the creation process :)

A great shot, as I've one almost exactly the same ! and yes, from a grey flat original we achieved a really nice final image. It's one thing to look at at your Blog and see the A-to-B transition, but it's another to actually be there with you and produce almost exactly the same end result with your help, and I'm just a bloke ! Thanks for a great weekend of shooting & post-processing tuition, it made some of the mystery disappear. Cheers. JP

Thanks everyone.

Justin: I'm glad you enjoyed it :)

I clicked over for the gorgeous image, but find the conversation interesting as well. What it all boils down to, IMO, is people being uneducated. It's the difference between the film guy that goes out and shoots a roll of film and sends it to some lab to develop and print, and the film guy that develops and prints the film himself, meticulously laboring over dodging, burning, masking and (shock) maybe even combining negatives. Education about how some of the great film images were actually made goes a long way.

Great! You took the most sublime (flat) of images and turned it into a wonderful, moody, minimal photograph. Really like this. It would look good as a large print on a wall in a corporate or hotel setting (or a home)!