this is a beautiful shot worth the fiddeling around! I too prefer to get it right in camera but if we all did that all the time life would be boring wouldnt it?
@techguytom Thanks Tom. The main problem is the huge crop I had to make. This means throwing away pixels! Then there are the number of processing steps. I can avoid the damage this causes by photographing in RAW and doing as much as possible with the RAW files using software. Conversion to jpeg (either in software such as photoshop of by your camera) also destroys pixels. You can exercise some control over this in photoshop but if you leave it to your camera it decides! - and often it does make good decisions to give usable files straight out of the camera. But once you start processing jpegs the damage really begins; too many steps and it can become very noticeable: chroma-noise (unwanted colour specks) and halos along edges are common. problems.
Usually I settle for minor crops, slight alterations in midtones (using 'levels' for example and slight sharpening. To get the effect i wanted with this print I took many more steps (but can't remeber which!). Many of you seem to like it so you could say it was successful. But I kniow that it only looks OK because 1) it is back lit (which always flatters!) and 2) it's dimensions are small. My standard is 'how would it look at 12" x16" and in print? I know that this one would be rubbish! Just look at the EXIF info. (file size, image width and height - they are very small numbers!) Hope this anwsers your question, and sorry I can't remember the exact steps
I hear (and see) what you're saying about losing pixels and adding noise David, but in terms of graphic impact this is a resounding success. So I don't think you should be unduly self critical, and I'm glad you decided to publish it.
@automaticslim Many thanks for the encouragement. Looking at your work you are clearly strong on graphic impact. It is not something that I had previously thought about or attempted, but this 365 project is encouraging me to try new things and the work of others, such as yourself, is truly inspiring.
In my case there's a technical limitation at work, inasmuch as I'm shooting straight to jpg with a compact, hence the tendency to go for the graphic images. Seeing the level of technical excellence achieved by many people here, yourself included, there's a bit of a rethink going on ...
Usually I settle for minor crops, slight alterations in midtones (using 'levels' for example and slight sharpening. To get the effect i wanted with this print I took many more steps (but can't remeber which!). Many of you seem to like it so you could say it was successful. But I kniow that it only looks OK because 1) it is back lit (which always flatters!) and 2) it's dimensions are small. My standard is 'how would it look at 12" x16" and in print? I know that this one would be rubbish! Just look at the EXIF info. (file size, image width and height - they are very small numbers!) Hope this anwsers your question, and sorry I can't remember the exact steps
Find it elegant as you said