To be or not to be...lol ...you've done a wonderful job processing this image. The processing should reflect the mood. Photography is an art as is the processing. I've taken photos and for one reason or another the image isn't the color I remember it being so I changed it to the closest match. However, sometimes the processing is the art and I've changed it as you have to fit the mood. You've raised the value in my opinion. I even talk in my sleep..lol

David from the Hebrides: Keep talking Sherri, you make a lot of sense and are very entertaining! Many thanks, and I agree with all you say.

Well, it seems to me that if my camera, and your camera, and probably the cameras of your readers, all taking the same shot, at the same time (more or less) would get rather different images, that no photo could be considered the definitively "correct" one.

I believe that post-processing is just an extension of in-camera processing -- and you can use it to better recreate the mood and tone of the location as you remember it, or to alter it altogether. In either case, surely, unless you're a photojournalist or shooting a documentary, anything you do to your image is perfectly valid.

Great shot, by the way. I like the clouds in this one even better than the previous one. And the grain in the wood is perfect.

David from the Hebrides: Many thanks, and I see that you also enjoy re-touching your images (very well) with HDR etc.
I actually did lots more with this one, recovering highlights, lifting shadow areas and selective sharpening, so I'm glad it is now generally acknowledged that these modifications are the modern photo-artists acceptable tools-of-trade.

Ah David - I have missed my daily fix from your wonderful photographs. This is breathtaking and, in reply to your question, I personally think it is both a great photograph, and a masterful piece of interpretive art.

So looking forward to catching up on what I have missed. (:o)

David from the Hebrides: Thanks Roz, and good to have you back- you will notice an awful lot of boat-related images in my archive (preparing for a show)
I actually did lots more with this one, recovering highlights, lifting shadow areas and selective sharpening, so I'm glad it is now generally acknowledged that these modifications are the modern photo-artists acceptable tools-of-trade.

This leans to the same old argument of is photography a science or is it art.
The viewer only sees what you put before them, they cannot assess whether it is not an accurate reproduction as only you witnessed the original scene. It depends on what you set out to do.

If we eliminate forensic science photography and say medical science photography where the purpose of taking the image is to record faithfully the subject matter in front of the lens then everything else is interpretive because of the influence of the unique mind of the person pressing the shutter release.
Lovely composition and mood by the way.

David from the Hebrides: Many thanks for your thoughts Jose, and I hope you will be getting some good shots very soon!
I actually did lots more with this one, recovering highlights, lifting shadow areas and selective sharpening, so I'm glad it is now generally acknowledged that these modifications are the modern photo-artists acceptable tools-of-trade.

The minute you point the camera at something and frame what you are seeing you are altering 'reality'. Digital processing is only the equivalent of what goes on in the darkroom - altering of contrast, burning and dodging etc. How far you go is a matter of personal taste - questions of validity, art, integrity are all very subjective. As you know there are many people who like to play around with software, completely altering what they have taken, twiddling away to their hearts' content. I don't know whether that makes the work less valid, but that is their choice - I just know what I like. And I like this one!
Ingrid

David from the Hebrides: Many thanks for your thoughts, Ingrid- I actually did lots more with this one, recovering highlights, lifting shadow areas and selective sharpening, so I'm glad it is now generally acknowledged that these modifications are the modern photo-artists acceptable tools-of-trade, but I somehow feel this work is given less value compared to trad darkroom splashing about because it is deemed "easy" and "easily repeatable" whereas the dodging and burning under an enlarger produced a hand-made one-off.

A straight shot from the camera might be considered a record David in Camera Club judges terms, but some post processing might also be considered as pictorialism and therefore worthy of more consideration. As far as I am concerned the question is "Do I like the final image"? Here the answer, as with most of your photos is yes.

David from the Hebrides: Thanks for your thoughts Brian- I actually did lots more with this one, recovering highlights, lifting shadow areas and selective sharpening, so I'm glad it is now generally acknowledged that these modifications are the modern photo-artists acceptable tools-of-trade.

David, I agree with everything everyone else has said. BUT.. if the exhibition you are preparing is for local people, who could possibly go and see for themselves, then the amount of processing has to be minimal. You can't have people coming back and telling you that what they saw was nothing like the pictures. The impact of the stories of the abandoned boats will be lost then, and the follow-up exhibiton will not work.

Just my thoughts, from a few very minor shows that I have done and learnt from.

I don't need to tell you, do I, that I love the photo.

David from the Hebrides: A very good point Sheila and one I must keep in mind as 50% of people who buy my prints from the gallery are indeed local on Lewis and when they are buying work by myself or others, it is usually because it is an artistic vision of the island they know and love. Thanks again for your always astute observations. D.

Very nice composition...how big field here...