Bushwalk Australia

Hi all,

Thought I would start a thread on the subject of post processing of photos. It seems these days almost anyone can take a good photo and make it a stunner. There is an abundance of great programs out there for this. With the advent of HDR in the recent times too, it has opened a whole new field in post processing. It would be good to see what you are doing, what programs you use and the results you get.

As a starter I have some different experiments using both HDR and non HDR. The cropping is a little off sorry.

Original


Processing via Lightroom & Photoshop


Processing via HDR and finished in Photoshop

To me, the only effective post-processing is the stuff that doesn't look like it's there. I know Dombroskis and Ansel Adams spent umpteen hours working on their best prints, but I never seem to notice where it's been monkied with. If I can tell, it blows it for me.

I'm a POTN (Canon Photography on The Net) junkie, and I've read plenty of threads commenting on the fact that people seem to prefer the over-saturated look you get from maxing out the saturation in PP, but a lot of the real "pros", and there are some out there, seem to prefer the more life-like photos, that just capture the moment.

To me, the greatest photos- Rock Island Bend, the ARVN Colonel shooting the Viet Cong prisoner in the head, the monk burning himself in Hue (wasn't it Hue?), the lady and the girl falling from the building during the fire, Lee Harvey Oswald getting shot, Snake River Valley, are the ones that come to mind, are so effective because they capture the moment- not because of anything that was done to the original photo. However, in atleast the case of the Ansel Adams, I know extensive post-processing was done to the shot.

My wife is a former photojournalist, and she has a really simply guideline to follow. For her, and I tend to agree, the finest photography exists in National Geographic. When you look through those pages, it's a combination of a high level of skill, being in the right place at the right time, and the ability to "see" a shot that makes National Geo. so successful- and not the post-processing.

Having said all of that, I still bump the saturation bar on Photoshop each and every time

I also prefer the natural shots, and the reason is that for me photos are to capture the moment. So my shots are always untouched, with the exception of panorama stitching, and such things that don't actually change the appearance as such.

Having said that, there's been many pictures posted on these forums that have clearly had a lot of post-processing and are truly stunning.

Son of a Beach wrote:...photos are to capture the moment

I second that. Not that I consider myself anything more than an average photographer, but I rarely do any post processing and usually avoid it like the plague.

Although I get really annoyed if I find that I didn't get the horizon perfectly level, or some foreign object mysteriously appeared, and might resort to it then. Or occasionally lightening up really dark shots. I'd prefer to try and spend some more time in the field playing around with camera settings to get different effects. Unfortunately time constraints often limit how much time I can devote to it.

That's just me though. I agree that there are plenty of wonderful shots on BWT that have been post processsed.

the_camera_poser wrote:My wife is a former photojournalist, and she has a really simply guideline to follow. For her, and I tend to agree, the finest photography exists in National Geographic. When you look through those pages, it's a combination of a high level of skill, being in the right place at the right time, and the ability to "see" a shot that makes National Geo. so successful- and not the post-processing.

Having said all of that, I still bump the saturation bar on Photoshop each and every time

IMHO taking an ordinary picture and then making it "stunning" with software manipulation simply demonstrates one's software skills rather than one's photography skills. I agree with the_camera_poser, good photography requires skill, timing and an artist's eye. I would add that it requires an understanding of lighting, composition and perspective, and an empathy with the subject. It requires an understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the photographic media (be it CCD, film or otherwise) as well as that of the equipment used.

If you submit a photo for critique by a forum such as photo.net you have to specify whether or not it has been digitally manipulated. The panel then knows whether they are assessing your photography skills or your PhotoShop skills.

Having said all this some of my most treasured shots have been accidental, and some of my studied and carefully composed shots have been disasters. Which probably just proves that it's a continual learning process for all of us.

Lex
http://www.lexharris.net

lexharris wrote:IMHO taking an ordinary picture and then making it "stunning" with software manipulation simply demonstrates one's software skills rather than one's photography skills.

Which doesn't necessarily make it any less artistic (arguable, depending on the results), but certainly does make it less about photography, as you said. It's certainly not my cup of tea for my own pictures, but I can see that it does sometimes have some good looking results (and in other cases, way over the top results, making the pictures look unreal).

Having said all this some of my most treasured shots have been accidental, and some of my studied and carefully composed shots have been disasters. Which probably just proves that it's a continual learning process for all of us.

and that sometimes being in the right place at the right time can have as much impact on the outcome as any other factor (for some of us, like me, anyhow).

I definitely dont think it's less artistic- I agree that in my humble opinion it's less photographic.

I fear my initial post sounded snotty......

Son of a Beach wrote:Which doesn't necessarily make it any less artistic (arguable, depending on the results), but certainly does make it less about photography, as you said. It's certainly not my cup of tea for my own pictures, but I can see that it does sometimes have some good looking results (and in other cases, way over the top results, making the pictures look unreal).

and that sometimes being in the right place at the right time can have as much impact on the outcome as any other factor (for some of us, like me, anyhow).

Agreed, artistic expression through use of software is perfectly valid but I guess the thing is where do you draw the line between software and photographic skill? Actually software manipulation is a necessary part of any digital imaging even if your aim is to produce true to life images. I shoot mostly film and my aim is to recreate as faithfully as possible the look of the original film image but I apply Photoshop corrections to every scan I do since no scan is ever perfect straight off the scanner.

Those unexpected candid moments can certainly yield surprisingly nice results. Below is an unstaged snap - right place, right time, camera ready...

the_camera_poser wrote:To me, the only effective post-processing is the stuff that doesn't look like it's there. I know Dombroskis and Ansel Adams spent umpteen hours working on their best prints, but I never seem to notice where it's been monkied with. If I can tell, it blows it for me.
<SNIP>

I agree with you there - I see the art of the photographer as the ability to "SEE" a potential image that will communicate a feeling, idea, atmosphere, essence etc of a place, capture it successfully from its 3D reality to the 2D medium of film or digital image with an understanding of the limitations of the equipment used and lighting conditions, and then present a final image that may need a range of adjustments to come as close as possible to communicating the image that the photographer "saw" when deciding to take the photo. So I enjoy images where the post processing supports the artistry of the photographer and does not draw attention to itself. Years of taking colour slides has got me into the habit of doing my best to balance composition, lighting, exposure range, before I press the shutter button, but the ability to work on my digital images to achieve the impact of what I originally saw is nonetheless greatly appreciated. My current frustrations with a "digital darkroom" are now more with learning to get what I see on my calibrated screen printed out in hard copy.

That sums it up for me too Ian, but I think times is changing things with or without us!

Most of the cameras we use have built in adjustment to colour. And those that don't, have software to change the images once they are imported into your computer.

Another point to keep in mind is the fact that different films all have different colour casts, and none can capture the vistas our eyes see in the bush.

lexharris wrote:learning to get what I see on my calibrated screen printed out in hard copy

The question is becoming, 'Why do I need hard copies?' I have been using digital cameras since 1996, always compacts (Olympus) - 1.3 megapixels I believe, and now print less and less 'hardcopies'. There are so many other ways to carry and display images now.

I know its an age thing, but I do like the 'feel' of paper-based images though.

Actually not my quote Robbo, but I do agree with tas-man's comments

Robbo wrote:Most of the cameras we use have built in adjustment to colour. And those that don't, have software to change the images once they are imported into your computer.

Another point to keep in mind is the fact that different films all have different colour casts, and none can capture the vistas our eyes see in the bush.

Sure, and I'd suggest that there is no image recording device yet built that would produce a guaranteed 100% correct reference image. The digital camera's RAW file is what the sensor sees - correction is then applied to get what you think you saw. And there are no two films the same - all have differing response. However (barring specialist media etc) all usually strive to achieve a good approximation to the actual scene. You can enhance/modify the result through conventional or digital darkroom techniques but I think there is a certain point beyond which it becomes either artistic license or just the dressing up of an otherwise ordinary shot. There is nothing new in doing this by the way, even some of Frank Hurley's famous work is thought to be montages of several images.

Robbo wrote:The question is becoming, 'Why do I need hard copies?'

Certainly it's convenient to share images these days through media other than paper, but I haven't quite got to the point of framing a PC monitor and hanging it up on my wall. There is still a place for paper images. The continuing popularity of books, magazines and art prints is testament to that. As tas-man has suggested, control of colour accuracy throughout the process requires considerable skill and knowledge.

lexharris wrote:As tas-man has suggested, control of colour accuracy throughout the process requires considerable skill and knowledge.

and 'ColorSync' (or equivalents).

I use Nikon Digital SLR cameras, as you probably know by now.
I thought I should contribute a few pointers on what I do.

When I take a photo, the camera records two files on the memory card - a basic JPG and a file known as RAW. This is a file containing the data straight from the camera sensor. A basic JPG can be quite a small file in comparison - typically between 1.5Mb and 2Mb, on a 10.2MP camera. The RAW file can be in excess of 10Mb on a 10.2MP camera, and as much as 18 to 20Mb on my new camera.

I use the basic JPG for my own reference to go through the files and see what I think are photos worth editing.

I've never been a fan of HDR - so often you see an image that has been HDR'd to death and it just looks wrong...
I have dabbled with it - indeed my Photo of the year 2007 was a HDR of 3 images, though I try and achieve a result where it doesn't look like a HDR for me to like the result.

To edit the file, I thought I would find a photo to use as an example.
OK. Here is an image, the basic jpg out of the camera. Resized, and also I have added two circles.


The yellow circle is a small dust spot, and the red circle is showing a rock in the water.
I open the RAW file in photoshop and zoom to 300% size. The rock in the red circle looks like this -


I then adjust the sliders to remove all chromatic aberration and it looks like this


I then adjust the tone curve until I am happy with the look


And adjust some other settings, particularly the white balance


Tweak a few colours in the saturation if I think it needs it -


I will then adjust the sliders in the sharpen area as I think they might need it -

But it is important not to overdo the sharpening here as I find a better job can be done soon...

One more step in Photoshop is to check the horizon - there's a really cool tool here that allows you to drag along a straight horizon and it will crop and rotate the image best-fit to that horizon.

Now I click on Open image, and it launches the image in Photoshop proper.
Zoom to 100% and use the clone tool to get rid of the dust spot, then open up the unsharp mask and adjust the sharpness to your liking...


Convert to 8 bit and save as a JPG.


Here is a 100% crop of an area of that photo -


The really bright areas with a dark background can sometimes show a shadowing, indicative of the sharpening tool, so you need to be careful with it.
The result at 100% looks questionable, but printed on 20x30 inch it looks fine - we're looking at a pretty big area here.

This image was just done only as an example for this topic. It would appear that I have warmed it a bit too much, the colour balance could be turned down a bit.

Hope these pointers help.

EDIT. Since purchasing Adobe Photoshop CS5, a lot of this is no longer relevant in my current workflow.

lexharris wrote:
IMHO taking an ordinary picture and then making it "stunning" with software manipulation simply demonstrates one's software skills rather than one's photography skills. I agree with the_camera_poser, good photography requires skill, timing and an artist's eye. I would add that it requires an understanding of lighting, composition and perspective, and an empathy with the subject.

Lex
http://www.lexharris.net

I agree totally. Digitally manipulating photos isn't photography. I have never ever used any sort of software to "fix up" my shots. If they didn't work out on the day then I go back to the same spot another time, and hopefully I learn what I did wrong too.

ashlee wrote:I agree totally. Digitally manipulating photos isn't photography. I have never ever used any sort of software to "fix up" my shots. If they didn't work out on the day then I go back to the same spot another time, and hopefully I learn what I did wrong too.

Interesting view, but if I could seek a little clarification, to what point do you consider a photo to have been "digitally manipulated"?
Do you mean HDR images and the like, or do you consider any post processing as having been unsatisfactorily manipulated / not photography?

Re "fixing up" shots, if they are a rubbish image then they cannot be fixed up so shooting again is the only option. A typical problem might be a washed out sky. Film never seemed to do as much of it, but with digital photography, a landscape image might produce a result with a sky that has been blown out.
That blown out area (highlights) can not be recovered. Digital manipulation would allow you to copy a sky from an image you like and overlay it in another image, though that would take a lot of time and the knowhow that I do not have, also I agree that this is getting to the point that it is no longer photography, but editing / computer skills. So taking the image again, but under-exposing to get the sky exposed correctly, might produce a foreground that is too dark. This example I speak of is one that can be fixed when you take the image, if you have ND Grad filters. Alas I do not.
So for now it's getting the image taken with the highlights in such images as close to being blown out but without being over-exposed beyond recovery, then working as best as I can with the image afterwards. THIS example of mine comes to mind. I'm still not happy with it, I think the foreground could do with some more light. To improve this in post processing beyond the levels I have adjusted, would require over-exposing the image then saving it as a layer in photoshop, then blending the two layers. Sure, you're getting the result, but that's not what it's about, is it - trying to make it look as I saw it. Always difficult when you have such bright areas and some quite dark areas in the one image like that.

I use the RAW data from the camera sensor and use my editing / post processing techniques to try and achieve a result as close as possible to how it looked to me when I was there. The camera cannot always do that when it takes a JPG image.
I'm no expert at post processing, but I do know I can improve a way an image looks by working with the RAW data.
Think of it as with film. You shoot with a digital camera and get a JPG image - the camera has done everything as best it can / best you told it to...
A bit like a polaroid, except you have an image ready for printing rather than the actual print.
With the RAW data from the camera you treat it like a film negative. The "digital darkroom" is your post processing software.
It can be addictive though, it's easy enough to spend anywhere from half an hour to a couple of hours editing one image, trying to get it exactly to your liking.

What camera do you use?

Just went and had another look at that image I referred to.
The basic jpg out of the camera was 1.1Mb. The edited JPG was 11 Mb. A lot more data in the larger file.

Yet the changes are subtle -




These are downsized to 640x428 so it's hard to get a full appreciation of the differences. The sky (top left) is more blue, the mountain isn't as warm (red), but more an orange-yellow as I remember it, the foreground is lighter, the clouds have more definition, there's more detail in the shadows, the brightest part of the sky isn't so hot... And the detail is so much more clear that you cannot see in these examples. Printed large, however, you can see the results are worthwhile.

Not trying to change your mind, just wanted to try and demonstrate that post processing can be done tastefully.

tasadam wrote:With the RAW data from the camera you treat it like a film negative. The "digital darkroom" is your post processing software.

I think this is the key point. I used to consider all post-processing to be bad, but then I realised that even with analogue photography, every print has been produced with post-processing in the dark-room. What happens in the dark room is unrelated to the actual taking of the picture, but has a lot of effect on how the print will look. A good analogue photo printing business will produce much better prints than the typical automated photo printing that was popular just before digital cameras took over. I don't understand the process fully, but I believe that printing from an analogue negative can vary a lot for producing various colour tones, contrast and brightness.

The other point is that digital cameras do post-processing automatically for you whether you want them to or not. This is something else I didn't realise at first, but as Tasadam alluded to, the JPEG images you get from your camera has already had post-processing done to them by your camera! Some people prefer to take control and do this job themselves, instead of accepting the camera's default automated post processing. This is the equivalent of doing the dark room work yourself (or getting it done by a professional), instead of taking it to a 1 hour photo shop.

So with digital photography, I now fully accept that some post-processing is fine, in the same way that it is required for analogue photography (although I don't do it myself).

It's a matter of deciding which types of post-processing are belong in the "photography" category, and which ones are merely "image manipulation".

Blending of multiple photos, HDR, cloning, deleting, etc, is clearly image manipulation and not photography. However, depending on the use of the picture, these still have their place, in the same way that similar techniques did for analogue photos.

Another classic example which makes good sense in post-processing is photo stitching (eg, to make a single panorama out of several photos side by side with a bit of overlap).

This is simply not possible without post processing, however, the results do not change what the original images looked like. It merely concatenates them.

If you don't do any post processing at all, then photo stitching and large panoramas (greater than 180°) are simply not possible.

EDIT: Actually, let's go even simpler... how about cropping an image? That's image manipulation and post processing, but does it detract from the photography aspect at all? Few people would think so.

So where do you draw the line on what is acceptable post processing, and what is not, if you want to keep you post-processing and image manipulation strictly in the photography category?

I was generally disappointed with the imagines generated by my cameras. The Canon S70 is a compact but quite good while the SLR is a Canon 400D. Like the combination as both can share batteries and storage cards and both have a raw imagine option that until I got Photoshop appeared rather a waste of storage space. Now I understand some of the features for processing raw imagines I am a fan and would probably only get future cameras with this feature but it appears lacking in the ruggedised cameras at the moment.

As for puritans, I agree with Nik that by its very nature a digital camera "processes" an imagine with some brands optimising the brightness and vibrancy of colours while other aim for a result more typical of film cameras, so I am rather puzzled by the stand against processing. Basically a camera does not "see" as we see so I am all for processing that tries to recreate the original scene. The big issue is depth of field and range of exposure with waterfalls being the main bug bear. The water is generally over exposed and the background almost black when left to normal processing. Sure with a neutral density filter you can compensate somewhat assuming that the light/dark areas match the shape of your filter. This is where post processing software that can "balance" the exposure is great. The human eye is constantly refocusing so we think everything is in focus when in fact only a small part of what we see is. This means to mimic this small apertures are required and hence long exposure times that results in "fairy" water flows. Either you love the ephemeral look or find this artificial. With great skill (and I have none ) you can take multiple imagines at a higher shutter speed with less depth of field to stop the water and then layer them. This trick is used especially with macro shots of say flowers to get an almost infinite depth of field. I am amazed at the skill and time that this must take. Now the resulting imagines of both techniques are heavily processed but this is done to get the same effect that the human brains does when process information from the eye. I see no problem with this.

The next step in processing is creating and imagine that does not exist. You might spend a life time trying to get a shot of a frog ready to strike at a fly and be tempted to merge a frog shot with a fly shot. To me this is trickery and rather violates the rule of capturing what you see so think that the photographer should state the trickery.

The final one is HDR where the colours are pushed to get a dramatic shot. If it is to generate what the eye would "see" on a sunset I have no problem but if it is to make a rather drab shot of say a historical hut appear dramatic against a blood red sky when instead the sky was only tinged then this is trickery and should be disclosed. It is interesting that I used to love HDR shots but they have now become rather clichéd so get turn off them unless the photograph is more a piece of art rather than a factual record.

That is the dividing line for me. Is a photograph intended to be a factual record or a piece of art. A great factual photograph may be a piece of art but I am less forgiving when a piece of art gets flogged as a factual record. I would feel rather cheated if a great shot of a person silhouetted against a dramatic sky perched on a mountain turns out to be a composite of many shots with heavy HDR processing and does not represent the "real" experience and is being touted as "you should have been there". No problem if it is intended to be a piece of art conveying what the creator thought should have been the scene.

Of course all the above is my personal opinion and if something is done really well then even though it might "break" all my own rules I still might like it. As for "over processing" I agree with one book on photography that said any processing should be either unnoticeable or way over the top and readily identifiable as mostly in between looks fake.

Cheers Brett

Great post guys. I always find this debate very interesting (as I always seem to be having an internal battle as to where post processing goes from being needed to un-needed and bordering on art) I find it quite interesting when people say that they want to recreate the scene exactly as they saw it (or as close as possible) but that they never do any post processing on their photos at all.

As we know a camera cannot "see" exactly how we see (e.g. dynamic range, focus, colour etc) so there will always be differences between what our eyes see and what the camera sensor sees, to take an image from the camera and try and replicate as best we can to what we saw (however this is impossible, take for example our eyes ability to focus near and far etc, a camera can’t do this so it will never be exactly the same as what we saw) will always require at the very least some basic manipulation e.g. general adjustments like sharpening, colour correction and dodging/burning, this is no different to what is done in a traditional darkroom, however, the digital age does make it a lot easier to take the photos into that grey area between photography and art.
I feel that there is quite a bit of basic post processing that is required to produce a good photo, that does not change the actual content of the scene and helps overcome the limitations of the camera, e.g. sharpening, contrast, brightness etc.

I am not a fan of HDR but I think that in the hands of a very competent person they are just as valid as a single expose which used GND filters for example (they still have to have a good composition to start with to make a good photos), all they have done is use a different method of overcoming the cameras limitations, however it takes a fair degree of skill to make them look natural without the any of the signs of a HDR you would normally see. I think that when an image is fundamentally altered e.g. Adams example of pasting in a new sky etc is getting into the art category and is not a reasonable representation of the actual scene at that point in time.

Adam, it’s interesting to see that you use the sharpening tool in photoshop to do your sharpening and noise reduction, is this your normal method when processing your photos? I have found noise ninja to be exceptional for noise reduction and the high-pass sharpening method to be fantastic as it sharpens just the edges.

Cheers,
Michael.

Interesting discussion folks.

I use the sharpening tool in Lightroom, but have been thinking about using Noise Ninja. Is it that much better?

Andrew.

stoogest wrote:Interesting discussion folks.

I use the sharpening tool in Lightroom, but have been thinking about using Noise Ninja. Is it that much better?

Andrew.

Hi Andrew, I use nosie ninja to remove the noise only and it is the best program I have used to date, it removes colour nosie particularly well and the little luminance noise you do get with the 5D is easily removed. However for a free program that does a pretty good job you can use neat image (http://www.neatimage.com/) which I used for quite some time and it was really good, although the free version doesn't allow saving as a ATIFF file unfortunantly.

As for sharepning I don't use either of these programs, I use an action in photoshop called "dave's sharpening actions" (just type that into google and go to the page listes as atncentral.com) I then use the high pass sharpening method which sharpens only the edges, and the amount can be adjusted by using the opacity slider that way you can zoom into 100% and see what affect it is having, and this layer can even be left as a seperate layer that you can adjust later on (although this doubles the size of the image, not real handy when that adds up to a 100mb each file!!), but I am not sure how the above can be used in lightroom as I have never used it, does lightroom allow you to make actions? you could probably research exactly what high pass sharepning involves and make your own action if needs be.

Cheers,
Michael.

I think I must have been half asleep when I wrote that post above...

I meant to write that I use Lightroom for both sharpening and noise removal and that I was thinking of using NN for noise removal only.

I'll have a look when I get home tonight, but I think there are some settings in Lightroom that allow you to adjust the sharpening somewhat. I don't recall seeing any settings for high-pass filtering though. There are also various plugins for Lightroom that are available (sort of like an 'action' I suppose). I'll check to see if there's one recommended for sharpening.

Andrew.

I just stumbled upon an interesting discussion on post-processing of photos, this comment is a response to that discussion, and it is about a group on a gallery site that strives for excellent images in work they accept.
I thought these views interesting and relevant enough to copy here.

aabzimaging wrote:Obviously, it is still the final call of the judges and moderators of the group (you do an excellent job!!!) but I have seen classy and excellent HDR images (although I don’t favour HDR too much, especially when used for a scene where it is totally unnecessary) and there are stylish Black and Whites.
The submitted image should be technically perfect in the first place. Wrong composition, poor focus and sharpness, blown out highlights, etc… they do all classify for a straight rejection, as well as over processed images during post production (no matter if HDR, B/W or not).
Only if the image is technically perfect I would judge on originality or uniqueness of the image or simply – if it has the wow-factor and grabs our attention.
(Un)fortunately with today’s software and technology a far greater manipulation of the actual image is possible compared to the classical dark room. Maybe we have to loosen our understanding of photography a bit more and allow for a new look at photography. Don’t get me wrong, I love viewing last centuries b/w images or Polaroids or thirty year old colour slides, but with the progress that has happened in digital photography over the last few years it is incredible to see the possibilities in the future. With the uniformity of digital image processors in most cameras though, post production more and more becomes a skill of it’s own – I believe working in the dark room required a similar high skill level just in a different way. So we equally have to take the quality of post processing of an image into account during the judging. If that results in a fantastic b/w, why not accept it. If it results in a surreal image with eye popping colours – why not if it is skilfully done (there are loads of wrong ways to increase saturation in post!). And if it results in an HDR scene, where the treatment is appropriate and enhances the image experience, why not?

Mickeymoo wrote:Adam, it’s interesting to see that you use the sharpening tool in photoshop to do your sharpening and noise reduction, is this your normal method when processing your photos? I have found noise ninja to be exceptional for noise reduction and the high-pass sharpening method to be fantastic as it sharpens just the edges.

Cheers,
Michael.

I now have Noise Ninja and Dave's sharpening tools, and will learn to use them when time permits, thanks.

Note that there is now a Photo Post Processing Challenge 1 open for entry.
Take a look, have a go. Should be interesting to see what we can come up with out of it.

"It would be good to see what you are doing ..." tasdaz

My photography is how I see South Eastern Australia. It is a most interesting and enjoyable time to be doing photography, with the ease of the digital darkrooms. Nearly all of my images are reworked in post processing. Sometimes I can spend days creating a simple photographic image, layer by layer. The editing programmes that I prefer, are Arcsoft, Lightroom and Photomatix.

I use what ever creative camera technique and digital darkroom techniques I can, to enhance an image. Digital processing techniques are basically no different to what photographers laboriously slaved over in darkrooms using densitometers, different grades of papers, appropriate wet chemicals and toners or printing and manipulating negatives or transparencies, since photography started ... only now without exposure to the toxic chemistry and extreme costs.

I don't just see what was there when I took the shot. I see the reason for why I took the shot. I consider how I can (best) employ digital techniques to give what I feel is the photographic image, starting from the moment I consider taking an image.

I can take a clinically correct image, make it sharp, have it well exposed, tonally acceptable and with a correct colour balance, like anyone can ... but it is the ambience of the place that is important to me in my photography. I tweak image details and tonalities heaps to re-visualise what I originally saw, until it is what I want to see ... and I think that I saw.

I can be as confident as I like with my photography. I'm a privileged Australian artist as long as I stay prolific. The NGA collects my art and they have for some-time. I pride myself that our Nation's Gallery collects my art about the Australian bush ... photography that has been created because I'm a bush walker.

Port Jackson Mallee. Black Gin Ridge from Shrapnel Hill. 2009.




Travelling Light. Near Gilbert's Gap. Budawang Range. 2010.




Map to Byadbo. 2009.




My Life Among the Cannibals. Charcoal Range. Indi. 2009.




I'm sorry that you are seeing these images only as degraded JPEG files but if they weren't JPEGs they would be overly large files for the web.


Warren.

Too cool Warren- I love those!

Drifting, thank you Mate. Some reworked colour shots.

'Low Clouds'. Dawn on a rainforest track in the Budawang Ranges. 2009. As a side note; the potential for good photography in the Currowan Creek and Monga forests is limitless and untapped.




'The Willowy Gallery'. A Gallery rainforest Errinundra River. 2009.




'Blue Day'. Magic Mountain, Wolgan River Valley. 2009.




'Transported Spur'. Ettrema Canyon. 2009.




'The Maker of Clouds'. Gangerang Range. Kanangra-Boyd. 2009.




May you have good light, carry 16gig cards and several spare batteries. One should not ever walk with out them.