Strange things are happening with your blog... Hope you can fix the problems soon! Did you realise that you posted this shot twice?
BTW I really like it - especially the tone of the sky!

Marina: thanks, I've deleted the duplicate. At the moment I'm having server problems, especially when publishing new entries.

I really like the colors in the sky too. And how the color of whatever that thing in the sky is matches the sand. It's like a piece of the earth floating away.
Any reason you cropped it to a square? Looks good that way, but it's a bit unusual. Nothing wrong with unusual though :)

AS usual I agree with your wife. I like the deep colors and the focus on that thing. Whatever it is.
Don't worry for sure your baby is just taking a litlle more from inside momy stuff and he'll be here any minute. Good luck with it.

I like this , looks like a slice of toast but perhaps that's because it's breakfast time here and I'm hungry :-)

Lovely shot. But what's that?:)

What the fu** is that?

great shot! maybe it's a reflexion of the sky with a rock?
pretty cool anyway! it's always a pleasure to come here.

Love it ... colours, contrast, square crop which ties in with the mystery object .. all. Particularly, the sharpness of the .. euh .. UFO - makes it really stand out like it's flying at you almost ...

In fact, that the object is unidentifyable gives this image the edge ... namely "Intrigue".

it 's a fantastic shot! well, i love fantasy/surreal photography anyway, did you see my efforts last week?

what makes this one good is that the only focused bit is also the only surreal/impossible bit - the rock, of course. great!

erik
http://eti-eti.blogspot.com

what the heck is that thing. looks like a piece of frosted-mini-wheat cereal. i do love the sky - just not sure about that piece of stuff.

I'm sure that creepy kid from 'American Beauty' would have his camcorder set and ready to give some corny speech :-)

Stop using too much bloody photoshop!
You seem to have lost your vision of what a photograph should be or is.

I've quietly watched your site for several months and have only on occasion made a comment. I'm not one for putting a dig into a fella and I fully respect what you can do with the old CS package, but at one time myself and the fella who recomended you both felt that you were a fantastic snapper and that your images were witty, sharp, very well thought out and perfectly executed.
You have obviously advanced you photoshop skills over the last year. This is all very well but ask yourself this. Are you still taking the best shots that you are so bloody able to do?

Take five mate and get back to your roots. This time last year your images were far more powerful and influential and all without so much photoshop.

Bonnng! A shot that snaps. Wonderful composition and coordinated colors. No idea what you managed to catch flying but it turned out well.

Anyone that says not to use photoshop, or use less is a fool or has obviously no idea about processing an image to achieve a desired effect.

I, for one, like this shot enough to leave a comment on it.

I have to agree with the comment from Kevin. What brings me to your site each day is the fact that you are a good photographer, with a keen eye for the possibility of an image, coupled with frequently perfect execution. Like Kevin, I have been disappointed in recent posts since you have so obviously come to rely on Photoshop to make an otherwise lacklustre image appear interesting. The problem with relying on Photoshop is that you are diluting your skills: almost any image can be tweaked in post production, and if you do this too often you're not differentiating yourself from anyone else with a basic understanding of Photoshop. Be a photographer again. It will be more interesting for yourself and for your audience.

I feel the colors are maybe a bit "too" velvia, even for you. The thing in the air reminds me of a piece of Cinnamon Toast Crunch (a cereal we have here stateside).

I do like it, but I just think it looks a tad overprocessed.

Dave -- what is this?? Is it a cereal ad? Not sure what you're going for here... I don't like it... sorry...

Got to agree with Kevin, to a point, to much effect in this one. The composition is uncomortable, which in itself is not a bad thing. I just feel that too must attention is being draw to the process and while this in itself is ok, I don't think it is working in this image. Unless it is your particular point to expose process in your images, I think you have to be carefull that you don't push techniques to far.

At 17mm and f/8 everything should be on focus, even the background (I think so). How do you achive de out-of-focus effect for the background?
BTW Great shot!

I think it's a great image, although I too am wondering just what is that in the sky?

On the matter of using Photoshop, or not... I think you should do whatever the hell you want to do regardless of what we say.

My personal opinion is that too many people have come to think of Photoshop as cheating somehow. I say that's bull. As a person who comes from a photography background, I view Photoshop as a tool, just like a piece of cardboard, some electrical tape on a wire, or your bare hands. You old-time photographers will know what I mean. Many of the worlds best known "traditional" photographs were actually heavily manipulated. It was just done in the darkroom, rather than on the desktop. With the proper skill, much of what is typically done in Photoshop, could have also been done in the darkroom. It's just a bit easier.

What a fantastic image.

Spectacular. Your wife is a good judge.
I think it would still be great even without the toast, but they fit together interestingly.

The lines in the clouds make it look as if it's blasting off to the upper-left corner of the frame.

you need to tell us what that thing in the air is!

I dont understand why everyone is saying this shot looks overprocessed. So, the sky is alittle bluer, and the sand has a slightly more saturated feel..other then that....maybe some sharpening on the (possibly thrown) object??

I will agree that I loved your old photos and although i know you processed them back then, the recent ones seem to have more...but to me, they look more professional.....so...i like them

It looks to me like you've fixed focus at about 3-5 metres, fixed the camera on a tripod at 90 degrees to the sun, adjusted your polarizer to deeped the sky, then zoomed as wide as possible. Then you used a remote to fire the shutter at the same time as you threw pieces of rusty metal into the field of view. I'm guessing you took a lot of pictures, then chose this as the best one and seriously cropped it down and went crazy with the levels/curves in PS. Am I close?

I like the *image*

I don't see a photograph.

Best wishes for your wee ones' arrival.

I like this, it is out-there. It be considered contrived, as if you had put it there, what is it?

Amuses me. It looks like an alien spacecraft to confound all the experts "that shouldn't fly, it's, well, it's...square!" Also the light on it is amazing, highlights the sand and contrasts well against the sky.

Flying toast!? I like it - one of the most interesting shots you've put up since the 8th August (in my humble opinion). Overprocessed? Definitely not. It would be very enlightening to see what would happen if we all had a 'no photoshop' week on our photoblogs. I think there would be more than a few people with very little to show.

Great shot Dave; would still be even without the flying toast. As for the 'over-processed' comments, no-one seems to mind when we see image upon image of 'super saturated' Velvia shots in every photo mag so why the fuss when a digital shot looks the same?!

Keep it up!

Good image, but I agree with db that as a photograph it's maybe too abstract or too surreal... What is it really?

Good luck with your new boy.

...sorry... for the first time I don't like the daily pic... :-( Of course it's a great shot, but I think it's too much unreal.

Okay shot, great processing. I likey! :)

Oh... just to add to that... I really like the square format here and how it ties into the golden graham... or whatever the heck that is. :)

There's no doubt this is a good photograph...al PS'ing aside...the amount of discussion above shows you that the picture apparently brings up reactions in its viewers which is something all good "art" does.
Futhermore it's an interesting photograph, not because of the sturdy post processing but because A> the viewer is forced to look very well and speculate about the "unidentified flying object" and B> the setting sparkles the imagination.

It may not be a photograph that was made with a very sharp eye (a la HCB) but it's definitely original and appealing to the eye...just a reminder that there's different kinds of photography and not al photograph's should be judged the same way!

Well done Dave!

----------http://leidscheblog.blogspot.com------------

Please excuse my spelling!

Fantastic shot. The colours are interesting and contrasting, and the "chip" really stimulates the mind

Post processing is a whole art by itself. What really is annoying is when people try to pass photoshopped images as what they originally captured. Many photographers developed great techniques without photoshop ond their images also purvey a bit of dignity that makes the images more enjoyable for some. I enjoy both, but too much of one just inspires oneself to look elsewhere.

Amen Paul and Jaap.

I used to think that photoshopping too much took away from the photo but now I disagree. Like A.R. said, it's an art in itself. I also tend to think that it's ridiculous for someone to go to someone's site (who is displaying art) to tell that person what to do or what not to do. It's your art, do whatever the hell you want!

interesting and amazing, how easily we get irritated, as soon as our expectations are not fullfilled...
the same with me, at first sight i thought your site has been hacked ;)
after so much perfection, so many lessons both in shooting and image post processing, your current approach is provocative, fresh and lively.
i may not like each of these images, but i like this hunger for something new behind it.
new directions.
it will be very interesting and exciting to watch how your new work, again, will be creating style!

Woahhh

I do like the colors. I'm still scratching my over what it is that's clying through the air. Remembering your penchant for reflections I thought that maybe the whole scene was reflected and that the object was a piece of debris on the reflecting object, but I'm still stumped.

As for the photoshopping arguments and chastisements above, I cannot say I agree. Many people forget that though Photoshop is powerful, in the end it is the person manipulating the image not the program.

In the end it is the person with the vision carrying it out. If this is what he wants the picture to look like, than so be it, this is his photo.

Purists argue that Photoshop and digital ruins the whole art of a photo, to which I respond with a long stream of obscenities in various languages. Purists forget all the little things they do in the lab. Pushing film, dodging and burning, filtering. Maybe Photoshop makes it easier to manipulate, but does not make the end result any less art.

Oooo, unexpected controversy ;-) More on Photoshop with tomorrow's entry but to put you all out of your misery this was a 2" square 'tile' or old iron that I threw in front of the camera while holding it with my other hand. It was just a throw-away experiment on the way home from the beach, but I did think it was interesting enough to put up.

As always, thanks for all the thought-provoking comments.

simply put: great!

i check your shots daily, though i don't often comment for some reason... not sure why. anyway, let me first tell you that i absolutely LOVE your work. it's extremely inspiring.

the whole photoshop issue is insanely juvenile and immature. you are an artist making the images you want to make. that's it. putting unnecessary boundaries on what you can and can't do with your own art is utterly pointless. sure, people are entitled to their opinions, but it sucks when someone else reads some of those posts and starts to second guess himself... and worry that he's doing something that is unacceptable.

i recently bought a book that has hundreds of photos that span the 20th century. people who think photoshop is cheating should go back and look at all the crazy things other photographers have done in traditional darkrooms.

what it all boils down to is that you are an artist making the best image you can with the tools you have. you only have to please yourself.

your excellent use of photoshop has inspired me to learn it. some people may have problems with what you're doing, but the way I see it, you're not only a photographer, but almost a digitally revolutionary one at that. I believe your incorporated work with PS to be a different level of photography (but photography nonetheless), and you're doing great! Love this shot!

I don't exactly love the shot but I do think it still has appeal. Maybe what I like best is the fact that square makes me think of cereal - a flat miniwheat to be exact.

How you managed to get a snap of my flying Meteorite XS-191 I'll never know. I'll have to be extra careful when taking it out for a spin now. And haven't we heard enough about Photoshop from everyone with half an opinion! Let it be.

Hmm... I like it... but a tad over processed IMHO. :-)

Miklos, Paul, Leo, and Zac, you guys know what you're talking about. djn, keep up the good work, and best of luck with the baby.

This is more me musing than a defence of any point of view for or against photoshop. When I saw this I was taken aback in that it's one of the most powerful images on the site, and really didn't think about whether it had been processed at all.

Yes it's unusual, but that's what I like in a photographer - someone who can show us something that we wouldn't see normally - that's why people still use black and white, that's why people process images to come up with something which to them is aesthetically pleasing - whether or not it's an accurate representation of what was in front of them at the time is irrelevant.

Anybody can just take a picture of what's there, which is why I have thousands of pictures which I wouldn't show to anybody. But it takes real imagination to show us things we don't expect.

Is that enough rambling?

I'm guessing it's a speck on a window? That's why the background is out of focus? At first I supposed it was a blanket that was blown into the wind, but it's really intriguing. I like pictures that ask questions.

By the way, I just stumbled upon your site today. I have an interest in photography so your photographs are perfect to me =]

Ooooh!!! :-O

Like an error in reality texture... This picture... opens!!!

About photoshop: no one can catch reality as it is, so I think it's right you underline what YOU are seeing. Doing so, you are (courageously! :-) even more opening yourself to everyone. You're deeperly involved.

Is this still photography? I don't know and don't care: I'm sure this is art.

Bye and thank you! (and please forget my possibly strange english)
Ananke

To PS or not to PS..is just a matter of taste. So what if the photo is bleeched or overcontrasted? I'm the guy who like intense contrasts.
Just keep up with the good work :)
P.S. I figured the technique you used to achieve this :)

I kinda like it - one thing that has got me though, why people think it is cereal flying across the image.

My personal interpretation of this particular shot is that it is a close up of an existing image on a metal board[advertising?] that has been ripped away leaving the rusty metal from beneath showing through.

Is this true?

..b..

btw: nice stuff chap

a toast in the sky?