If you *really* want to know what you're missing don't bother with asking us amateurs. You should submit a few of your very best images to a stock photography site and see if they will accept them. Most of those sites are very direct in their critiques regarding the technical aspects of the image, the subject, and the composition.

Places like Fotolia, Getty Images, Alarmy, Stocksy, and many more. Just Google "stock photography site."

Seems like you made a bold challenge to BebuLamar -- can you step up to this bold challenge?

The unsurmountable problem with all of the above is that most of us are not taking photos in controlled studio conditions where we can prep the subject, build the set and control the lighting. Outside the studio it is almost a guarantee that what we find that we want to photograph will present a subject characteristic or lighting contrast condition that the camera's picture controls can't address and then all of the above comes crashing down.

I'm sitting here this afternoon processing a fairly large collection of photos -- 1060 to be precise. I'm 756 photos done with 304 to go (taking a couple of days). So far I haven't encountered one single photo out of 756 that hasn't been made a better image by applying selective local adjustments to the image. NOT ONE! 304 to go and odds are very high that all 1060 photos will be improved by some type of local adjustment that can't be accomplished with the camera picture controls. That'll be 100%.

This isn't about knowing what to do to get the image right in camera. It's about getting it best in camera is usually not possible. Let's look at an example from the set I'm working on now -- illustration below -- a pink anemonee which I found in direct sunlight. The direct sunlight on the flower is fine, in fact I like it. But that same direct sunlight is also shining on the background. Now the SOOC JPEG shooters will just set up the portable light stand they always carry with them and pull a shim and clamps out of their camera bag and shim that sunlight off the background, yeah right -- works with mountain landscapes too. At best the SOOC JPEG shooter is going to get the photo you see on the left. None of the picture controls in the camera can do anything about how bright the background is relative to the subject. The left photo isn't awful but the photo on the right is better with the background subdued. Do we want best or not? I want best and in the case of this photo and the other 755 I just processed best can't be done using the camera's picture controls and generating an SOOC JPEG.

If the odds are that high against you getting a best result with the camera picture controls SOOC then why bother at all? It takes time and effort to screw around with something that probably won't work anyway. Doesn't sound too smart does it. The only way it makes sense is you're willing to settle for less than best.

Ysarex, you illustrate your point exactly and perfectly using the alligator picture post by Retired CPO as an example. I'd be embarrassed to share a photo like that and then present myself as a competent photographer who argues against embracing/using the fundamental principles of good photography. Folks like Retired CPO just make me shake my head and smile. As said earlier, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being unskilled and taking snapshots - but folks who do that need to accept their limited knowledge/skills and stop making uninformed arguments to defend that limited knowledge/skill.