*Great* picture.

*Not* an image;)

A well-reasoned explanation. The days of Dodging and Burning have given way to Cuves and Levels. From the earliest days of photography, the image has always been manipulated. The composition itself - by, say, omitting that can of Coke in the foreground to capture the Eiffel Tower - is a choice that "alters" reality by giving a very specific view of it. Is that cheating? Of course not. Is cloning out the can in Photoshop cheating? You make the call.

As I see it, an image that out and out claims to be something it is not, lessens the impact. Being up front about the details reveals what was required to get the shot.

At any rate, I enjoy the mirror image quality and complement of colors in today's shot. What, I ask myself, are they discussing? And what's up with the jeans???

They look like they sat in some paint...

Nothing wrong with Photoshop in my opinion. It's a great tool. Even for the purists, many of the things you can do with Photoshop came straight from developing room tricks. Might as well use the tools at your disposal to get the most out of your pics.

I think Photoshop is a great tool, but as any tool it can be used in good or bad ways..
A good picture has an effect, and if you use you´re tools in a good way you enhance that effect in a good way. But effectmaking, wich is very easy with a powerfull tool such as Photoshop, is not a good thing. Just like when a movie disappear in all it´s effects. Ofcourse, there´s exceptions, there always is.
A photo can be processed and be even better, no doubt, but there´s always a balance.. that´s my opinoin anyway

( wow, i put lots of "ways" in there)

Post processing I think is fine, I don't like some people's work when it's overly done and effects can be seen easily. I like this shot, reminds me of hanging out at the beach.

Wow, those jeans look like a bad case of using the Sponge (desaturate) tool in Photoshop!

On a technical note - I often find that C1 Pro helps me out a great deal leaving very little to be done in Photoshop when it comes to post-processing. There are exceptions, of course, like cloning out minor distractions, but I do prefer to keep processing to a minimum.

As for the shot - this is just the kind of quirky image I like.

I agree with you completely Mr. Nightingale on the subject of Photoshop, it's a photographic tool to used to alter or correct problems that occured when the shot was taken or if the mood takes you then change the whole thing completely..... After all its your photo.

I can't understand some of the 'self appointed' photo experts who leave 'nit picking' comments on your site, if they are as good as they make out to be then where can I find their photoblog site?

As for tonights photo..... Lets see what tomorrow brings.

Ps. Good luck with that lazy lad!

love the colours! Very interesting shot. I like it. I don't really know why. But I like it.

It's all been said, but for anyone still interested in where the boundary may lay between 'reality' and realisation (if the former really exists :)), take a look at this work by possibly the UK's most prominent - and award winning - photographic retouching bureau. It's particularly worth looking at the 'Retouching Galleries' and 'Case Studies' (you'll need Flash).
We know that advertising imagery is frequently totally fabricated (at least I hope we do!) but it is fascinating to see just how far you can go whilst still creating a scene that just might exist in real life.
The agencies commision this to help sell a product - Dave's minimal PS work helps sell his.
Dave - the only thing that looks 'unreal' in this picture is the back of their jeans!

Photoshop or The Gimp (which I use), is just a process of Photography as it is a 'post-process'. Just like with traditional photography and developing the pictures, you can 'post-process' by changing the exposure completely, or changing it in certain areas by covering parts with your hands. You can also change the colours a lot depending on how you mix the cemicals and how long you leave them developing at each stage. You can also change a lot of the photo before hand by using filters on your lenses. So in my opinion I dont think Photoshop or The Gimp is cheating or have allowed us to make many other changes to our photographs (excluding fancy filters), all they allow us to do is things quicker and easier, I think thats the REAL argument.

Kris.

I like it; nice symmetry. As for Photoshop, it is a tool towards creating something. Nothing more, and nothing less. There are different sets of ethics for different endeavors, of course; photojournalism being strikingly different than images made simply for "art." I'd like to see the toy-like image.

I have no problem with someone using photoshop on a picture, especially anyone that prides themselves on using digital cameras. My only issue is when an picture is so obviously manipulated that it becomes strangely and unappealingly false, much like the 'uncanny valley' that semi-lifelike robots can fall into. For me, yesterday's picture was an example of the latter, today's picture would be the former.

I think the debate of "to Photoshop or not to" or "Photoshoppy or Photography" will go on for ages, especially so when more and more are plunging into the digital world.

Anyway, i like today's shot. The two guys form some sort of heart shape to me, but the symmetry is too glaring for me (i.e. i prefer them to be at the side.) I dun know what the railings have done to me but i simply don't like them too much. haha

cheers! you have your style. continue what you do best!

i like the plastic look of the two men.
your post processing in combination with their bodylanguage produces a kind of playmobile scenery, that makes one smile.
i totally agree with you. photoshop is a tool to achieve what the photographer wants to express. sometimes there's more post processing needed, sometimes less. but we did that in the darkroom too:
we had our special workflows, we did it with chemistry and with light during the process of enlarging. this was indispensable to get good results. the same today with digital photography, just the palette of tools is a bit larger.

I like it. Looks so casual. No news of the baby huh?

Forget the tedious debate over Photoshop. Most of us are more interested in learning HOW you used it, not whether it is appropriate. So more detail please. I love the photos, but rarely learn how you apply PS to gain improvements. Like the jeans for example.. we're all eager to know what has happened to the jeans :) .....

I like the composure and colors, the faded jeans, the orange yelow shirts contrasting with the colors of water in the front.. cool.

Is it cheating to extract items from a shot that you could/did not take out when the shutter opened and closed? I think so. If your eye doesnt catch it when you take the shot, or you are not able to find a better angle that extracts the destraction, than you (as a photographer) have failed.

Is it cheating to enhance a photograph that could have been enhanced using more expensive/more time consuming methods? I think not. Spend less time setting up the shot, and more time taking other shots! Just my opinion...

I think many of the visitors to the site are aware of your stand point on post processing in photoshop. My view is if you disagree on the way you do things then visit a different site! Maybe setup a separate link from the main page so you don't have to keep reiterating it? Just an idea.
Personally I find this image a little dissapointing because it's just so ...normal, may be you just spoil us and we expect too much :-)

amazing shot! like the mix of yellow and orange together in the pic..and the mirror image shot! was this planned by u? or was this a 'on the spot shot'?

What planet is Adam on? He raves about 'cheating' as though photography is an Olympic sport. It is not about winning or losing Adam.. it is about creating.

An everyday scene made truly eyecatching - well done.

Love their saturated colours in contrast to the ice-blue tones of the rest. How they almost mirror each other in body language is amusing - bien vu!

djn: maybe the only way to avoid this rights/wrongs of photoshop discussion cropping up on an almost weekly basis is to set up a separate forum on Chromasia :-)

BTW, thanks for previous comments on your PS techniques (e.g. last weeks skin tone tip), I've learned a lot.

I really like the way they are standing, almost mirrored.

Who cares if you use photoshop, to me its just another photographic tool such as a polariser or ND filter or something, as long as it produces an picture worth looking at, it doesnt matter how you did it, its the end result that counts the most.

David, I only came across Chromasia quite recently and this is my first comment.

This is a well observed shot, there is a great balance in the positioning and colours of the figures.

On Photoshop, I don't really want to regurgitate the opinions above, but will say this; my belief is that almost all things done in photography are a manipulation, from choice of lens to shutter speed etc. Even when using film, it can be selected for colour saturation, contrast, grain, uprated, downrated etc. etc.

I have a book of darkroom techniques, which interestingly contains instructions for doing things to photographs way beyond what many people do digitally.

Pressing the shutter is part of the creative process, not the end of it.

Love the site!

Great shot! Looks funny to me, the look like mirrored.

Wonderful shot, David. I particularly like the fadings on their pants... they either bought them at the same place or sat on the same freshly painted bench!

great shot.

what about making a full site of your photoshop tips ????

Love this shot. I really like the way the two blue cans appear to be opposites whilst everything else is a mirror image. Great colours.

Very nice picture. I thng the guys here are Indians.

He's carrying a clip under his shirt!

Great shot Dave - well observed bit of photography.

I won't even bother debating the use of photoshop.

You know what? I just don't understand. This is a straight forward, mundane image. Yet it is extremely compelling for me. The vibrant colours of their tops is just pure luck (obvioulsy capturing this was great). I like the fact that they look deep in conversation, or maybe deep in contemplation?

I must say, if I were there, that's what I'd do.

As for photoshop. I am still uncertain. There is definitely far less skill (although yes CS is still complex) than the traditional process I feel. I would also point out that, what with layers, if you make a mistake you can get rid of it, whereas the practical side would mean (invariably) starting again and Dave, you have to admit, some of the processes you apply are pretty advanced were they to be used on film.

I personally took a few shots of sunflowers the other day and yes the contrast due to poor light was atrocious, so yes, I lightened them. I see that as ok, but the blurring tools, although a skill I am not cetain are on a par with that of film, which to my mind is far more involved...

great pic with a title that is essential for the whole .... er...thing

Nice colours. You can't pay to get such characters!

i know you like the colours, but it would be kickass in high contrast b/w as well. well spotted.

I couldn’t care less about the technical side of creating images. Any image!
Tell me, when you read a book do you care how it was written or published.
Give me a break!
Men! They are so analytical and imagination-challenged! :)

Thanks everyone. I guess the bottom line with Photoshop is that I use it in a particular way, or ways, and some of you will like what I do and some of you won't. My own criteria is a simple one: did I do what I did well, or did I do it badly. The amount that was done is irrelevant.

Oh, their jeans were like that; i.e. it wasn't anything to do with the post-processing ;-)

Fraxinus: thanks for the link - their work is very impressive.

Tobias: yes, it's mundane, but I think there's something compelling about this shot too.

Simply Amazing. I agree with Navin that these two gentlemen do look indian.

I do have a suggestion for this site. I've looked a lot of images now and in the past and wondered how much post-processing was done on it. Since we are very much dwelling on the topic, i thought it might be the right time to make this request.

If you could in someway make a link to the raw image of the shot, in a way, we could compare how much post processing was done. And if you would be generous in your time (if you had the time to begin with), any notes on the processing would greatly help. I just thought it would be helpful for the up and coming photographers who clearly have a lot to learn from you.

Thanks for your efforts and making us see things differently each day.

:-)

I love the photo. It's a great street photo.