This image was taken in 2013. Initially, I over-edited. I captured the image with a singular focus point and a f-stop of about f/3.5 with a 70-300mm lens. ISO was probably 400 and WB sunshine. If I had to do this image again, I would have pre-set my shooting menu to select multiple focus points to capture more of the flowers. Since I was aspiring to capture this image with a dramatic focus on a partial flower/full butterfly, presently, I would shoot from about 200mm, f/8, from the same location, ISO at the golden hours with a full sun, about 100. My shutter speed I would speed up to about 1/20 s. and go from there. Honestly, I believe now I could film this image within 5-10 shots and nail the dramatic appearance I desired in the first place. I tried following the Rule of Thirds so I placed the butterflies antennae using this rule to the left. But, I have had 7 + years more experience.
For this image, and since I was editing from a RAW file, one that was heavily edited, it remained an imperative to reverse the initial edit. I wondered how to create an almost duplicate of the original, so I reversed the process on LR that I took at that time in 2013, to how I edit now, as now, I have learned “less is more”. And, the surprising thing is I included the re-edited image introducing it within the Windows Editing software and all I required to touch up was to continue with the original filter, and enhance using the enhancing tool wand.
In my honest opinion I believe the image was captured near the effect I would have gone for now.
John Gregory Evans & the Paavo Oso Arts Project in Boise, Idaho.
2 thoughts on “Telling the Truth About Digital Editing”
Great example of reverse editing and the benefits of the learning process. Thank you you for sharing this “less is more” insight!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Judith. I have always been unhappy with my editing until I realized over-editing is a horrible thing to do to a work of art. Thank you for commenting.
LikeLiked by 2 people