I also like the light on this one, the colours are amazing, the rust always looks cool and the texture in the wall.

Where was this one taken by the way?

Just to add, i have started taking photos of anything rusty since i have seen some of your pictures, the texture from it is just amazing, one of my favourite ones was the one that looked like a little tank or something from quite a while ago, those kind of photos have really influenced me a lot

This is beautiful and it isn't because I have a partiality toward windows. Nice find, and nicely shot

I love this one - it looks very French-store-frontish-old-world. I would buy this as a print if I could.

SteveO: it was taken in Blackpool.

Mandie: email me if you're interested in a print.

There is something morphing about this image, it reminds me of dia shots where the film was partially exposed to light before development.

Beautiful colors and textres in this photograph. I am amazed the way that you made the wall and curtain seem so soft and the metal bars still have a harsh edge to them.

Yeah, if I had to place a bet, my money would be on this image as pretty heavily manipulated. If all you did was correct the perspective ... wow. You might want to double-check the date of that exposure tho'. Either that, or you have a lot to explain.

Jeff: this shot uses a technique I've described before. Duplicate the image layer, Gaussian blur it by around 15px, then set the blend mode to Overlay. This adds the slightly diffuse/dreamy look to the shot. In this case though I also changed the 'Blend if' values in the blending options dialogue to decrease the effect in the highlight and shadow areas; i.e. the curtains and shadows cast by the bars aren't so dramatically affected as the stonework.

And the date's in UK format; i.e. 12th May, 2005, rather than US format, 5th December, 2005.

I read before you don't used to manipulate your pictures? isn't it?
By the way. I use to see your pics every day. They are great!!!

miguel: ALL my pictures are manipulated, to one extent or another. At the very least I convert my RAW files using a set of pre-determined criteria. I normally also change the overall constrast and saturation of an image within Photoshop. At the opposite extreme I'll spend a few hours on a shot and my changes might include; selective masks for contrast, levels and saturation, the use of a blurred layer (or two) to diffuse the image, minor rotations or distortions to the original image, flipping the image horizontally or vertically, cloning out dust spots or minor intrusive details, running the image through noise reduction software, desaturation, selective toning, sharpening, radical changes to the colour balance of a shot, and so on. All of which I see as being as much a part of the creative process as taking the shot itself.

What I don't ever do is add things to a shot that weren't there in the first place - e.g. cloning in the sky or some other detail from a different shot - and I try, whenever possible, to avoid cropping.

Love the tones and colors! Those colors in the window are quite interesting...so many different hues.

Great job!

so pretty- all the colors look like they are melting into one another.

amazing colors! really lovely!

David, with all this manipulation that you have mentioned, what is the purpose of the Exif data in your post?

Great colours and textures! I'm very impressed as usual.

aww man.. u never fail to compose great photos.. art art, its all about composing.

Beautiful shot, but to me this is more about digital art than photography. I understand its a fine and very hotly debated line, and this is not to say that the image is not good, etc, as it's beautiful. But is it a testament to your photographic skills or your skill with photoshop?

Really nice softness/blur on this one, or whatever that's called. Colours are also very nice. =)

I find this dicussion about manipulating photos very interesting. I suggest you post a week of non-manipulated photos.

I'd rather look at an image that I liked to look at rather than one that is left in it's initial digital state that isn't nice to look at. Manipulated or not, I really like looking at this pic!
I think Skauce brings up a good suggestion though. It would be very interesting to see what your images look like before any adjustments were made compared to your final product.
In any case, as I've mentioned before I think your work here is awesome an you're a great inspiration to myself and many others here in the photoblog community!

Cheers!

I love the warmth and shadows in this image.

In the old days "manipulation" was done in the darkroom (contrast filters, diffusion filters, burning, dodging, cross-processing, etc..). In this time and day, where we all shoot digital, Photoshop (or another image editing software) is our darkroom. Call it what you want, but post-processing the image after it was taken is essential to my work.

Beautiful image, as usual.

To quote Bresson - Anyone with a camera is a photographer these days.

(I hope I got that right!) But the meaning is obvious, any photographer now

has to move to another level of creativity - and photoshop manipulation is

one way to do it.

Thanks for sharing your techniques so openly with us.

Interesting photo, love the tones through out it.

Amen, who cares about 'skill as a photographer' as Jeremy put it? Photoshop is fun. Lots of good photos happen because of luck. And a photoblog is not a test. About this shot, I like the juxtaposition of the grotty exterior and the inviting interior. The manipulation adds to the effect.

Thanks everyone. As for manipulating or not manipulating images: I'll write something on the entry I put up today rather than discussing it here as I think it's a topic that's worth discussing in a bit more detail.

awesome

marvellous imho ... wonderful colors, textures and ligh

this is beautiful. =)

I love how the grate, which is typically evocative of prison, danger, or coldness, is incorporated into a picture that is so warm and inviting. Beautiful!

And on the pure photography vs. digital manipulation question, I think Photoshop is simply a fantastic companion to traditional photographic tools, and those photographers who choose not to embrace it are missing out on many wonderful artistic opportunities.

Saying (or implying) that manipulation with Photoshop is "cheating" is no different than saying that selectively burning and dodging in a darkroom is "cheating." And I doubt anyone would ever argue that!

My 15-course digital photography certificate program at the Rhode Island School of Design (one of the top art schools in the country) has a full 5 required Photoshop courses. I'd say Photoshop has become pretty well integrated into the art of digital photography.

There are two moods that are appealing to me from the picture. Guess it's pretty obvious between the rusty window grill and the window glass but it's simply amazing how you can integrate two contrasting moods into one single picture.

Then again, it looks more like a painting than a picture

Once again another image that I wish I had taken - and there have been so many!
djn1 said: "ALL my pictures are manipulated, to one extent or another. At the very least I convert my RAW files using a set of pre-determined criteria."
Could you , at some point, describe some of the general steps in your 'pre-detemined criteria'? It would be very helpfull to know how you get some of the amazing effects that you achieve which are your trademarks. (Or is it trade secrets :) )

A lovely picture, the colours and saturation are terrific, and the contrast of lace curtain and iron bars is quite striking.

Any reason though why the top of the window is cut off? That little detail is enough to distract my eye, and slightly marrs what is otherwise an exceptional image.

another very strong photo. you've done a great job capturing all those different shades on the wall.

Absolutely gorgeous shot! It doesn't get any better than this.

About post-processing, my opinion is that it just becomes part of the photographic process after a while. I now routinely take into account how I'm going to manipulate a shot before I press the shutter release. For example, yesterday I took a picture of a red apple surrounded by white flowers in bright sunshine. I spot-metered off the white flowers, and then underexposed based on the meter reading by a full stop. I did this to avoid blowing the highlights in the flowers, and also because I knew I could bring back detail in the darker parts of the picture (the red apple) in post-processing. I think when you're familiar enough with your particular camera and how it handles various lighting situations, and you're familiar enough with what can be accomplished in your graphics and/or RAW software program, you stop making distinctions between the various steps and rather view it as an integrated whole. Hope that makes sense.

leaving aside all the technical stuff about technique - this is just an amazingly evocative photograph. It triggers so many questions: whose window? what's going on in the room? why the bars? and on and on and on
Had to smile when I noticed it was taken in Blackpool - the most mundane places can be so exotic when you look closely

Great, great color / mood / tone to this one. Well done.

Thanks everyone.

Maran: the EXIF data is useful in that it tells you where I started and what equipment I used.

Jeremy: this shot could have been achieved using conventional means (soft-focus lens, dodging, burning, etc.). Are those photographic skills?

Skauce: not a chance ;-)

Gav: the pre-determined criteria I mentioned are just the standard settings for C1 Pro.

Simon: the top of the window was cut off because I was backed against a wall, didn't have another lens with me, and wanted to focus on the bars at the bottom of the window.

Judith: yep, that's how I see it.

I like the dreamlike quality of this photo. To me, the rainbow colors in the glass are very subtly stricking. Cool work!

Wow. Great effect and great composition.

I like this shot too David.

Manipulating photos.

Anyone who feels that manipulating photos is wrong really needs to admit that they are simply a purist and that's fine.

Anyone who is not sure whether it is good or not really needs to aquaint themselves with the photographers from the Post World War 1 Modernist movement (Man Ray, MOHOLY - NAGY)

These guys would have killed for photoshop and the chance to experiment as we can now.

We've had modern - mid century modern - post modern eras and now we are into a new century and things move on and that means that photography will move on as well.

As far as I am concerned you can do as much or as little as you please in photoshop but surely it allows us to expand our vision whilst creating images.

Painters for instance have always rendered scenes much more vividly than was actualy witnessed and they have ommited distracting elements as and when they see fit.

The argument that a photo should be truly representational is of course valid enough but I think that theory died about 80 years ago thank God.

John

As a footnote to John Washington. The camera, be it film or digital rarely if ever cpatures an image that is "truly representational" so we should all be pleased that post processing exists be it done in the dark room like Ansel or in Photoshop like Nightingale!
PS this pic wouldn't normally have had a comment!

Beautiful. I love the soft, dreamy effect and textures.

Yum. romantic, poetic.