Nice, looks very natural!With the clear intention to work on the image and create a "Rembrandt" style lighting while the scene was shot just in daylight, I slightly overexposed, to get more definition in the shadows and avoid too much noise; there was no clipping of the highlights.
Here is the RAW version (converted to jpg in Photoshop, but no adjustment)
View attachment 808304
Then I deliberately worked on tones to create a more gloomy overcast looks with a spot of light on the main subject.
The process is localized adjustments and treatments that is layered and masked and then selected just in spots. I don't believe in global adjustments of the whole image, it just doesn't work for me. I do use liberal amount of the "burn and dodge" tool too, just like when I used to do manually when printing from film.
View attachment 808305fast dirt by gnarlydog, on Flickr
to the average viewer (non photographer) it might appear rather natural, and that was the intention, but to a skilled digital editor the are probable doubts that this is not OOC.Nice, looks very natural!
I like how you call it: semi credibleI do strive to have most of my images look "natural" (semi credible) and I am not a big fan of overcooked obvious PP.
Semi-credible is a perceived representation of reality for me.I like how you call it: semi credible
That's also what i aim to do: It's processed, enhanced, but without looking overdone. (Of course what's overdone is very subjective)
Yes, everyone has their own limits...Where is that line that one should not cross? It's anywhere you want it to be. Personal choice.