Of course, Andrew, sorry, yes anyone would need the RAW. I believe David is happy for it to be used if needed. My point was just that I didn't think anyone could claim (Yet) that its a sure bet that PS etc could reproduce the same effects.

I would add, that it would seem according to the results as recorded above, that this particular modular approach has succeeded. That is not to say that any other approach (say a single 'one-stop-shop' type program) could not also achieve a high balance of these qualities.

I have been advocating PCU4 for us Pentax people, because at the workflow front end, it is particularly well equipped for ensuring we have full and easy access to all this data to draw on in later editing.

For example, in ACR David was hugely more limited with his saturation and vibrance control. Even though he wanted to retain the blues, if he hadn't have, then he would have been forced to export them into PS as well as all the other suble sub-tones that were in there (eg under the water) and that David has said he couldn't see (although maybe he was looking more across the lake).

I on the other hand was able to take a fuller creative control at the RAW stage - by using the Colour Fine Tune panel (in PCU4) I shifted the balance away from the blues and allowed more of the subtler undertones through. So by the time I exported and was working on an actual image file (in Sagelight), I only really had to control the relative intensities of the colours, I was not having to change colour values or make any excessive vibrance boosting.

I'm afraid there is no way that any RAW image (which is not even a photograph really!), can somehow be considered in any way 'pure' or a natural rendering of a scene. It is just a data record of everything the sensor could detect - every detail, colour tone and brightness value - even if none of these were perceptible to anyone there, if the sensor can record it it'll be there in the RAW.

Then the real work starts! It is the processing where the decisions are made as to which specific data recorded to feature more or less photographically - is how much of any single tone, how to spread the brightness around, and where to extract more or less detail - and finally where to patch up and repair where the sensor has failed! (ie noise reductions, blown highlights, and colour casts.

It is through the processing that the photographer can 'develop' her/his visual intentions. My visual intention was to demonstrate a particular modular workflow approach and try and extract the best balance between high detail, the full range of tones in the scene and a clean, smooth texture, as our eyes would see it.

And it's not only about the softwares actual technical processing capabilities - the interface and design of the editing functions can determine to a large extent what any individual user can achieve.

I still doubt that the particular exact effects in my version of the shot could be duplicated using PS or Lightroom etc (no one has yet shown it can be done!), but I know for sure that it was easier, more intuitive involving less complex preparation steps to achieve in the software I used.

Thats why I use it - I have found that each item exceeds in a particular area with an efficient and practical operating interface - This alone can make the creation of certain results only possible on this chosen software.

We've not failed totally - its been successful in getting many people involved and thinking about image processing One of my points is exactly that you CAN'T do precisely the same things in different softwares! Each program has its own strengths and weaknesses. I want people to think about what are the particular strengths and take full advantage of those.

Well, there's two ways of going about this. We can stick with this one photo, if David is willing to allow his original DNG to be used by another person. Then you could take it and use either Photoshop or Lightroom and see if either program can produce the same look and qualities (Noise levels, cleanliness, clarity and definition etc).

Johns work above can't really be representative of what could be possible, he'd need the DNG for that - but I don't think he could achieve the same with only Photoshop

Or we start from scratch on a new image.

OK - all has been revealed! Yes, I processed Image 1, starting in PCU4. Here, apart from standard exposure and shadow / highlight contrast adjustments, I applied the lens corrections, but I boosted the amber and green WB tones, and used the Colour Fine Tune wheel to lower the blue intensity while holding onto more greens yellows and magentas. Within the Custom Image settings I set some sharpness, extra saturation and contrast.

This was outputted to 16bit TIFF, then into Sagelight 4. Here I carried global brightness & contrast control using the Powerbox sliders, a collection of 10 'EQ' type sliders that can be grouped to work automatically - they work in hidden layers on the highlight areas and shadow areas in two different actions. Also here are definition controls applied globally. I colour balanced also, and applied the extra vibrance to the weaker colours.

Finally this was saved in 16 bit and opened in PS elements 8, where using selections, I applied the Topaz Detail and DeNoise plugins to provide the localised sharpness, (such as the clouds and reeds), and targeted noise reductions.

A Big Thanks to David for allowing me to work with his lovely image! I have enjoyed it very much, and I too am finding the comments and ideas from you all very informative. As you know, I personally favour an approach that uses the most effective, or easily attained, adjustments you can get from different software.I believe that using any single program must involve some compromise at some stage.

Lightroom users, is anyone up for a challenge?

OK then, all is revealed! Yes indeed - image 1 was processed by myself with initial RAW conversion and 'development' in PCU 4, output to 16bit tiff, then into Sagelight 4, where I do most of the colour toning, highlight / shadow and contrast control.

I use Sagelights sophisticated sharpening and definition controls (on its Powerbox panel) for global detailing, but then in Elements (which allows selections) for 16 bit work using the Topaz Details plugin - this provided the fine cloud detailing, while the Topaz DeNoise plugin provided targeted noise reduction.

Many thanks to David for providing such a challenging photo to work on. I don't get the chance to travel to take shots, so I relished this opportunity to put my different software through its paces with this image.

I very much hope we have stimulated ongoing interest, and I'm up for any further challenges step up all you Lightroom users!

I'm with David though concerning the differing abilities of software. If there can be any success to this exercise, then I hope it might stimulate further interest in exploring the different products out there - personally I advocate PCU4 for the RAW conversion, but there are other programs that can work wonders in specific areas - we just have to explore and pick and choose. I have found I am learning about general photo presentation in the process

Thats been suggested - the problem we find is that we all have different commitment to and expertise on different software. Even with equal skills it would be hard not to let your love of one particular package shine over the other.

Many thanks to all for the interest so far. Not sure how far we'll go before revealing the origins of both images! The choices of colour casts and toning has obviously made a big difference in how people react, and is certainly the prominent distinguishing feature.

However we were keen to keep the focus on those aspects of the final output which were common to both in quality assessment terms : I can think of a number such as noise levels in different parts of the scene, for example.

I am sure I speak for David as well in saying we appreciate your input and thoughts.