Wow.. atta boy david. I really like this. And great explanation :) I really like how you brought out the colours in everything. That's some fine post-processing.
Thanks sir.

Myself, I dont care how much processing is done, as long as the end result justifies it, and I think you've got the balance pretty much spot-on. Speaking of which, how did you achieve the soft-focusing in Photoshop? my attempts usually end up looking overly 'misty'.

miklos: thanks.

James: the soft-focusing, in this instance, was achieved by duplicating the main image layer, applying a 12px Gaussian blur (on the original full-res image), setting the opacity to 54%, then selectively erasing those areas over the two birds and the foreground water. An alternative (though this method increases both contrast and saturation) is to set the blending mode of the blurred layer to either 'Soft Light' (for a more subtle effect) or 'Overlay' (for a much more pronounced effect). In this case I didn't want such a dramatic increase in contrast.

I can't agree more with you about your "First off" and "second" notes. I myself have been struggling so many times trying to transfer the feeling I had from a scenery to the viewers of my photo, it's a very difficult job. Sometimes I achieve it with assembling photos and making a not-too-wide panoramic, sometimes with colour correction (or both). I really liked your post and the descriptions. Thanks.

From someone firmly in the post-processing-is-not-a-sin camp... I admire both your eye for composition as well as your post-processing prowess. Keep up the good work.

You're exactly correct. This is *your* brand of photography, and you can do anything you want with it. That said, I've always been a fan of your work, and have inspired me to seek further instruction in Photoshop methods.

I cruise many photography sites and hear many people compare lens specs, sharpness, and how the scene "should" be, but the photography I usually end up seeing in galleries and such are usually the "interpretive" kind of photographer's work. I respect the fact that you make no apologizes for your particular brand of photography.

I love the soft focus of this photo, and if I were the groom I'd be very happy with this shot compared to the original. I'm enjoying seeing your work with the 20D.

Well put, Dave. The only thing I'd add is that, as skilled as you are at Photoshop, it wouldn't be worth a damn if you weren't such a fine photographer to start with. Just to keep it all in perspective...

its the end result that matters...well, thats in my opinion, and quite honestly, I prefer post processed photos. high end cameras nowadays purposely underexpose and undersaturate to allow that much more control over the photo.....

I think anyone that complains about post processing is just jealous they can't do it themselves.....its an art, and not everyone has the eye for it...

great shots!! Simple, but effective.

I think yesterday's shot was better than today's. The soft blur you gave this image makes it look like your lens was smudged on the top half. If the whole photo had this blur then it would probably look more natural to me for some reason.

Being a Photoshop whore myself, I agree that it's about capturing the feel as well as the look of the moment. Plus, Photoshop can act in place of buying a million types of filters and gels and such. They do start to fill the bag quite quickly.

Also: I am not a fan of soft focus, but I respect your right to use it.

I'm also a firm believer that it's the end result, and not the process, that's important. I love it when you post your originals. It always inspires me to add some spice to my more mundane photos and experiment a bit (though most of your originals are way better than my end results :P). Thanks also for the commentary you've provided with the photo. I think you've nailed it.

i'd just like to echo a few things here--the feeling of the time & place is so important, and sometimes cameras just can't physically capture what our eyes see, and never what our hearts and bodies feel. one of the biggest reasons i enjoy your photographs so much is because they convey those feelings, they make me feel like i'm having an experience rather than just sitting at my desk looking at photos. everybody has to find their own way and brand of doing things, and i think you've quite found your niche--it's refreshing to hear someone stick to their ground and also not be so swayed by others opinions. constructive criticism is great, but not when the person receiving it looses who they are because of it. and joe is totally right, you can only do so much in photoshop your starting point is still what you put into that camera-- i very much agree with the way you've worded your 'defense' (not exactly the word i'm thinking of, but you get the drift, i hope...) like i've commented before, and someone said above--posting your original is a great inspiration and learning tool for us all!

I just wanted to say how much I enjoy your photos, no matter what the process. Your willingness to share effects achieved is always informative and appreciated.

Great composition. Eye stopping color. I agree with post processing. Well done!

Hi David, I have been hooked to your blog since my first visit a month ago. I did not want to post comments ever. I merely wanted to feel your photographs and carry their essence with me. I am writing now to add my bit on post processing. I am a writer and I know how crucial editing is to the final product. When I record an incident, I do not merely write it in sequence. I juggle moods, sequence of events, characters and location to try and convey what I feel about the incident. Post processing must be the photographer's equivalent of this process.

I sometimes buy digital photography magazines and they often have articles and tuturials on photoshop in them, although some are very good, most I have found are very poor. They tend to show a very poor photograph and then make it worse by adding crappy filters and effects! What these magazines need is you David. Good photographs made better with the aid of photoshop as a dark room (and maybe a little more).

The very best camera in the world doesn't take great photographs on it's own, you have to have a creative eye behind it and in digital photography, you also need some good photoshop skills to develop your images (in my opinion).

To echo most people here, great photograph and thanks for sharing your comments and process.

I completely agree with what you said David
There's already a lot to say about the perception of colors by the human eye alone. A lot to say about monitor calibration, too. A photograph is the end result of a chain of events with so many parameters in it, that Ithink ultimately it all boils down to a matter of taste. Are Dave's shots too much processed ? I don't know, not for me, because I feel that the processing that's been done has a positive effect on the final image.

A photograph is never finished, somebody famous said that (i should look it up). Everyone post processes to their own level of skill: in the darkroom I used to manage a little dodging and burning, PS allows me to alter curves and and USM - anything more though and I'm liable to ruin it. If I could do more, of course I would.

The point is, I think, if you have the ability to improve a photo, then why wouldn't you enhance it.

Great photo :-)

Just the power of nature impressed in this photo. two sweet bird on a romantic view on the water.
You're simply the best DJN1!
Matteo

See my phblog

That's quite an interesting way of seeing the final shot. I usually don't do too much post-processing other than levels, USM and saturation. But maybe I need to think twice about it.
However, there are still a few things like panning and zoom blur that can only be done well using the camera

I totally agree with what Dave said. I think post-processing is as part of the photographic process just as pointing and shooting is. What matters, imo, is the end result, now how you got there. In that respect, Dave has an amazing ability, and this photo is a perfect example. The final version is much more appealing than the original one.

Dave - I agree! This shot is obviously incredibly enhanced over the original and captures the mood perfectly. I have no issues with post-processing - if it wasn't for it lots of my shots would be cack! People have been post processing (albeit in a darkroom) for hundreds of years. The great thing about having a photoblog is that its your interpretation of the image that counts. Quite often I post a shot I dont really like and people love it. More often the visa versa is true! I didn't like the way yesterdays shot was post processed (is better now) - but hey - thats my opinion and its yours that counts!

‘straight’ photography (photojournalism for example) isn’t about producing a literal copy of the world ~ Quite so! ...as Magritte aptly illustrated with his (not a) Pipe; which is partly why (along with the subjective perception issues you mention) I named my own photoblog notReality...
Great explanation and a very nice photograph. Like many others, I am very much enjoying your explorations of the world as seen by your lens with your new camera David.

Everybody else has said it - and I agree- you've got to post process to make the photograph say what you want. But- you can't make a silk purse if the composition of the original isn't there. If David had taken this picture without the birds to complete it( for example), it would have been lost, directionless, no matter what whizzbang effect you applied in PS. It's for this reason that I try to use a tripod and 100ASA film whenever I do serious photography (alas not often enough) as it slows me down and makes me think about the picture I'm taking. Unfortuantely this turns photography in to an antisocial pastime and bores the nearest and dearest.
Sorry - long rambling post

Ask Ansel Adams if he printed right from the neg or did he do a little dodge, a little burn, a little contrast filter, and some love to make his images.

I think that we confuse the confines of one medium into being the rule for another. All David did was apply the digital equivalent of vaseline on a lens filter (poor mans diffusion)

Digital Photography is the natural evolution of print photography, with tools to create even more captivating images, to push the envelope.

Long Live the Revolution!

Viva!

I just wanted to pipe in and say, I'm right with you there David, when it comes to photography, I'm far more interested in the "feel" than a literal replication of the scene.

That, and I think this image would be much better without the cement edge on the water.

I really don't see the aversion some people have to digital post-processing, as opposed to analogue post. They are both techniques to create the image you want.

It's true that sometimes I think people have gone 'too far' with their post processing but that really is just an opinion. Sometimes people post cross-processed film that I think has gone 'too far' as well. Either way if the photographer likes the result then the image is a sucess for them, no one should be telling someone what is right or wrong with their post-processing, you can give advice of course, but there's no right or wrong about it.

The resulting image and how 'successfull' it is depends on the photographer. If you randomly take a few shots and then try desperately to produce something from them in photoshop I'm not sure that's what I would call being 'genuine', but if that's what someone wants to do I'm not going to tell them it's wrong, there are many happy accidents that happen like this.

Personally I like to think that the images I end up with are the images that I had in my head when I first saw the scene, whether they are the result of post processing or not. To me it's what I see that's important to capture, what I see, and that's not necessarily a literal translation of what's in front of me. The tree image on my blog is a good example of that imho.

djn1, as usual some thought-provoking stuff and I agree that photography is rarely about objective representation, but incorporates an element (and this amount varies from photogrpher to photographer) of subjective imagining - we've all, I'm sure, composed shots where what we choose to leave out is just as important as wht we choose to put in.

My own perspective on post-processing is a little different to the majority view here. There's no doubting that you are a fantastic photographer and someone who provides me, certainly, with ideas of different techniques to try. However I feel that when a substantial amount of post-processing takes place (and I'm not sure what this threshold is, perhaps it is different for each of us) then an image moves away from being a photograph towards being a different type of artwork - perhaps digital art. And I feel this is an important and equivlent medium, just a different medium.

ok, so there isn't much else left to say -- everyone here has already spoken my thoughts. i agree that it’s the end result that matters most, not the process. and without having a good eye in the first place you wouldn't have anything worthwhile to work with.

i just want to add that one of the things that i too like most about visiting your pictures is getting a chance to see the original as well, and seeing how some of those PS effects actually work. i've been a big fan of that Gaussian blur trick ever since you wrote about it earlier this year. thanks for the inspiration!

Thanks everyone.

And the only thing I think I'd disagree with is Jason's point about the composition; i.e. cropping out the cement edge and the water ... and I'd disagree for two reasons. First, I think it frames the image (sure, some aged wooden decking would have been aesthetically more pleasant), and second, I was trying to capture the feel of the place; i.e. that we were in a boat club at the side of the river. Without the edge, for me at least, our location would have been excluded from the shot (if that makes sense).

To me it's all about control. I don't like using photoshop in an instance where I didn't have the control over my camera to do something correctly in the first place. But the other side of that is I don't believe in leaving a so-so image alone when I have the power to make it look like I want it to using photoshop. The whole point of all of my photography is to try and describe my life right now - a very big part of that is how different places and people feel to me. My assumption is that this may change over time and I want to be able to look back and remember how it felt to be me right now.

So yeah. You're in control of your camera David. You're in control of the post-processing. You're a rock and roll star.

Dave, do you post-process these comments too? Some of them sound overly soppy.

Hagio: no, I don't.

David: I can't wait until the world gets over post-processing. Enough already! You're a remarkable artist, and a generous one to boot, sharing your images, information, thoughts and feelings with the world. Thank you.

Photography is not a sport, it's an art - what counts is what you give to others. Who cares about how you do it, it's your magic...

I love your pictures, and I take some myself and really appreciate your explanation on the post processing (I said "who cares on a "philosophical" level, not a technical one, I really care to know how you do it so I can learn).

You're always an inspiration. Thanks.

I recall the original to be like the post processed image. The reality looked very like the magical shot in Daves picture.