Our dented friend has a rosier cheek, or eye, as it were. I.e. Processed with color saturated. Lightly cropped.

I may have mentioned before I have some OCD tendencies. I believe the euphemism is “perfectionist.” A lot of times, I will process a shot and then let it sit. Then a while later I will look at it and wonder how I ever thought that was acceptable. Now, after a little mulling I can usually find a way back to my original conception, but sometimes a nagging remains. In the case of the blow fly with the very, very red eyes, I couldn’t quite get over the nagging.

First, I questioned why I even chose the photo I did! In the series I took of this subject, I picked the highest magnification shot I had — I do have magnification bias — but then going back to find the NEF file of my original choice, I decided I liked the above one better. In the side by side below,  as you can probably tell, the other major difference is the saturation of the colors. In the first attempt, I wanted mainly to saturate the eyes which I thought were too dull. I tried to selectively do it, focusing on the reds, but it wasn’t working out so I left it mostly unchanged. When I was looking for an image to post here, I took a gander and couldn’t get past the dullness, so when I pulled out the less magnified image, I redid it with an eye (awful, I know) to richer colors.

I think it worked out better, but I wonder if it is a little too “untrue” to the subject. That is probably a “purity fallacy” (my term) but doubt, as it does, creeps in.

The original attempt, a higher magnification of the dented hero; this treatment has no color saturation.

Our dented friend has a rosier cheek, or eye, as it were. I.e. Processed with color saturated.