'Tis a pretty swan.

Nice one. Did you did something to make the water's color blue navy (dark) ? I have some pictures i got in the port of a little group of pelicans but the water looks disgusting. I hadn't thought on doing that.

Maybe the ponds are prettier in his part of England! I really like it. It looks good with the black skin. And come to think of it, that water does kinda look like ink...

love the contrast of the blue and the white.....and then the orange sets it all apart........its simple, but really pleasing to look at!

Swans are out in force at the moment and I for one am thrilled. I got this shor the other day:
http://www.smallestphoto.com/index.php?showimage=50

I find a problem is getting a good balance of detail with the feathers, Sun, white , feathers - tough one.

Great shot, but I'm also curious if you changed the colour of the water...

I think people should stop asking questions like whether the water colour is changed or not. Obviously it is. What image on this site ISN'T changed (aka processed) ?

miklos: I think you need to rephrase your point. All of the images on chromasia are processed as all of them were shot in RAW format (bar one transparency and a couple of jpeg's early on); i.e. they need to be processed otherwise there's no image to put up. What I suspect you mean is that they're over-processed, or processed in a way that takes them away from 'reality', or something similar. No?

utter contrast. powerful.

Well whatever your effects, just know that most people like them. :) Slightly standard shot, but at least has something rendered unique in it, and that's the water. I'm also guilty of what are considered "cliche" shots, but then again it's about what YOU think is interesting, not taking pictures to impress anybody else. Right? I keep needing to tell myself that.

Quite the photograph, David. What I like most is the orange bill, really adds the extra pop. Great shot.

Beautiful Photo!

Great shot, as always - beautifully interpreted :)

very well done, swan images are dull by nature
this one is not
I like the super dark water and the white swan

to miklos' point:
Processing of images has alway been here - Ansel Adams spent 100s of hours dodging and burning on his images to give us image of natural beauty as he saw it.
Later, cross processing with crazy colors, each decade had something else. Selective blurring, etc.
Photosho just does it faster, and gives us more tools to express our version of reality.
There is nothing over-processed, if the photographer succeeded in communicating his message.

Hungaro: I think that you jus found the rifth words.If ths pictures makes looks what the photographer wants us to see, then the process of getting the images as it is presented has been sucssesful. Is not the we don't know that many of the digital pictures needs at least a little bit of post processing. The point is tha many of us are in the process of learningm and I think David has been so kind on giving us some ideas (to many of us I guess) on how to use some ps tools. If he dosen't mind then I may continue with my stuped cuestions. :)

This is gorgeous work, Dave. Just gorgeous.

Hey, I got one just like ithere. Although not of a swan.

Definitely

I'm sure Miklos could speak for himself... but... since he doesn't seem to be replying to Dave (who seemed a little rattled) I will put my interpretation on his post.

Firstly, Miklos, people are perfectly entitled to enquire what modifications Dave has made to his images. We all can’t be as accomplished as Dave but most of us would like to be and any crumbs he can throw in our general directions will always be most gratefully received. I'm not sure Dave realises quite how much he is revered around here and how much people hang on his (all too brief) words.

Secondly, Dave, I don’t think Miklos meant as much as you read into is words. Yes, your point about all the images being processed is technically true since you shoot in RAW (even if you shot in JPEG this could also be held to be technically true since the raw images are processed by the camera :^)) ... but he DID in fact mean (or so it seems to me) that you, perfectly reasonably, enhance your images after your RAW conversion. We all do. We are meant to. The cameras we use intentionally produce images low in contrast and sharpness so that they can be tweaked for whatever use they are meant for. Fun cameras produce sharp, vivid, contrasty images destined directly for screen or printer. Pro(sumer) cameras as you know don’t do this since the images could be for any destination and will need differing amounts and order of post processing. So, Miklos, it seems to me meant what he said. All your images (and mine and most others who shoot with a prosumer camera) are post processed to some extent. A curves here, a sharpening there etc etc and so on ad infinitum. Where did he say they were over processed? You said that.

Anyway, 'nuff said. Back to the swan. Technically good. A nice image, definitely not one of your best subject wise.

...but hey, I couldn't do an image EVERY day like you can and I suspect 99% of your viewer's couldn't either so you are entitled to an average shot every once in a while!!!

Dont ask me where the "Definitely" came from at the beginning of that post!!! Strange...

Nice Swan.

Miklos
I often recommend this site specifically because you can ask what has been done to an image. Not everyone knows it all.

apart from the pure beauty of this picture, your workflow is absolutely fantastic. i'm always wondering how you achieve that outstandig image quality and - most of all - how you manage to conserve it through the procecess of image resizing.
i wish i knew your secret...

I was naturally going to respond to Miklos but it seems that people have beat me to it and with the right words.

Miklos: I feel that you need to educate yourself in terms of image processing past and present. Since day one people have pushed or pulled images and photoshop simply is an alternative method. Many people who visit here like the photos and are genuinly asking how the image is processed.

If you don't like images that are processed, then why visit here at all. There are plenty of other photoblogs who present a 'purist' image and maybe you are better off visiting them if that is your preffered style of photography.

I suspect though that you might just be a tad envious of what chromasia has achieved. Lets face it love or hate chromasias photographs you cannot deny the effort that has gone into this comprehensive site.

Quite frankly your negative comments are becoming boring.

Dave: Please feel free to delete this post, I won't be offended.

haha.. wow, I guess I don't have to say anything at all after all of this. Adiran summed up perfectly. Dave did in fact read too much into what I said.

So did John.

Also, John: I won't publically humiliate you (unlike the reverse of the equation) but I'd love to continue your Miklos-bashing off the record.. feel free to email me.

Sorry. I meant Adrian. Not Adiran ;)

Ok, sorry miklos, I overreacted. I guess I've had the "why do you Photoshop so much?" conversation too many times and read your comment as more of the same. My apologies.

more later ...

Ok, I like to think of post processing as what I used to do in the dark-room being applied to digital stuff. I think David does it very well.
I think Milkos would prefer my more subtle approach though, so I've spent some time on David's picture to show how I would have done it. Contact David for prints. http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y2/dlldll/apologies_to_tchaikovsky_reduex.jpg

Beautiful one.

Doesn't anyone else find this photograph a little boring? Maybe not boring, but typical? I'm not saying I could do better (even though I think I have, and I'm not photographer), but I don't so much find anything to be intrigued by with this shot... processing or no processing.

dl, you have a very, very nice swan ;-). I think I would like a poster-sized print of that for my wall!

I agree with nikki p. in some respects. Taking a picture like this would result in me feeling great, thinking, "this picture looks good because good photographers take pictures like this". True, they do, but that may result in the lackluster outcome. Now, if you composed some Russian music to play along with the shot, you may get deeper reactions :-).

Thanks everyone.

Adrian: yes, I quite agree, all of which will teach me not to post comments late at night, when I'm tired, and in a bad mood ;-)

dl: cool version ;-)

nikki p.: yes, I do. I think that the problem, such as it is, is that the composition isn't all that inspiring. As I mentioned in my intro, in a technical sense I'm pleased with the shot, but, for me at least, there's something missing.

michael: the secret to resizing is to do it incrementally and then sharpen afterwards. I use a plugin called Web Presenter Pro that automates the process (the resizing aspect of it at least).

John: I suspect that miklos meant well.

Oh, and yes, I did change the colour of the water by using the Curves tool to up the shadow areas in the blue channel.

Of course. I wouldn't hurt a fly.

I usually detest swans as I find they are one of the scarier predators of our planet however in this light i have been shown that they have a hidden beauty and i must admit that i was wrong - im sorry xxx

Really like this photo! And have to admit that I tryid to do the same... But mine swan was not that clean... :) I really appreciate your work!