Oh yes, thats exactly the same for me. I was lucky enough to have 2 edits mentioned but the funny thing I was trying to do them as Nigel would - clearly I am not actually capable! I was temporarily impressed with myself that I thought I could justify a new camera until I reminded myself he was talking about my edit not one of my photographs! I love his videos and work.

Yep, I'd say it does. From the lens choice to the focal length to composure and when you take the shot, plus the settings used, that provides the foundation for the image. Editing is putting the finishing touches to it and finalising what look and mood you want the image to evoke in a viewer.

>glad to be the first one today really..lol

@@doderiolarkisso4038 actually yeah, I’m in the us, been following him for years, and once and a while I can’t find myself sleeping cause of my own back issues. I’m always glad when Nigel posts on my rough nights. There is usually always something to take away from his content. And I’m glad to be the first when it happens cause I’ve enjoyed the content for years, and glad to continue seeing him following his passion, sharing the process, stories and detours when they arise. 😅👍🏼 nothing wrong with being happy (glad) to support someone. Me being glass I’m the first one is really just saying thanks for keeping me company. I look forward to next time.

It's nice to see someone else struggles with greens in their landscapes (also in my macros)! I always seem to de-saturate them and or tweak the hue/tint in the final image.

@@williampetersen2899 I think we all go through the same or similar issues & beat ourselves up too much thinking we are not up to scratch when comparing ourselves to others. I try to work through the issue and find a method that gives consistent results. Lots of greens in an image seem to be particularly troublesome - for me anyway. My own trial & error has helped, and Nigel's approach here certainly given me some food for thought with this.

Thanks so much for this!

Spencer, that's an interesting question. Take my words with a grain of salt as it is only my opinion, but I think Nigel demonstrates that 'style' does not necessarily mean similar tones or hues or a specific color palette in all your images, but rather more or less subtle adjustments to tonal distribution depending on subject (e.g. he seems to do similar things to his sky in a landscape image) and specific handling of specific colors which actually exist in the image (e.g. muting greens). Whenever I wanted to try to 'style' my images in the sense of applying similar tones/hues to a series of different images, I always stopped doing so quickly because I just love the colors of nature and my photographed subjects sooo much that I always felt to destroy that beauty by 'styling' images. So, I prefer bringing out/emphasizing what I like and love in each image (or better: in the real life subject). So I guess I am more like you than a typical Instagram-er. This having said, I enjoy looking at other people's more extreme adjustments, and I think a style which can easily be recognized as such can have great appeal when looking at a series of images rather than at one image alone. And nowadays it is almost mandatory that you 'style' your photos if you want to be recognized or even noticed by others. Nigels images are great, his style is subtle e.g. he doesn't swap green with magenta or something alike, that's why I enjoy his images and bought a photobook, they are great. On the flip side his style is not as easily recognizable as more extreme styles from others. The good thing is you can try out so many things as you are (probably) working with raw images and can create so many versions, one set of the same images more realistic and one set more color-'styled', there is no right or wrong. Ansel Adams 'edited' (printed) his images differently throughout his life. Though his raw files were negatives, his prints (which he 'edited' a lot in the darkroom) of some of the identical negatives have been less contrasty in his beginning and more contrasty later in his life. His 'style' changed? :-) But I also have to agree with others here who mention that a photographer's style does not start in front of the computer, but in the field. Just one example, if you capture your subject e.g. a tree or rock with a lot of bokeh or smooth transition into blurred background then this is fundamentally different to an 'all must be in focus' approach aka focus stacking. No right or wrong here either, just a different style, in case you always do it that or the other way. Which is kind of boring imo. Botton line: Style can be nice, but also can be boring. Nigel even showed a photographer who has changed his/her (quite strong) style, maybe this is both, nice and interesting.

Me too - I've always understood crushed blacks to mean making sure there IS a true black in the image... I usually do this, but I liked the idea of lifting the blacks, as it helps Nigel's style, and I'm a big fan of it!

I think he just means crushing blacks as in stamping them out and lifting them as you said. You are not missing something although I think I am as I always try to emulate his work but fail!