selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Probably not even too aggressive. And with Fuji, the highlights and shadows are even more flexible.

The problem with SOOC is that you need to make those choices in the field. It can be difficult to judge the results looking at the back of the camera in ambient light.

That's where post processing from raw has an advantage. The only thing you need to watch for is blown highlights and you can work with the result at your leasure.

BebuLamar

And that is why I don't think the SOOC people would want to make all those adjustments in the field because they didn't want to do any of those adjustments in the comfort of home by shooting raw and make all those adjustments in the raw converter. That is why the original post in this thread is not helping those as they don't do it any way.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Not a great example.

For starters, the first image is not SOOC. It's been through Photoshop. Although you drastically reduced the size to make it smaller, that was not really necessary since a JPEG (Basic) from the Z7 at full resolution is well under 5 MB.

Secondly, the scene has two light sources. The clouds are clearly sunlit while the foreground is in deep shadow from being under heavy cloud cover. It's a scene that anyone shooting SOOC would probably have avoided in the first place.

But to make matters worse, after recovering the shadows for the foreground, you attempted to make it appear as though it were in direct sunlight by fudging the white balance. The problem is that, in that part of the scene, there are no shadows and no highlights anywhere except where the brightly lit sky reflects from the water.

So the result is no more credible than if you had used a scene where the foreground was actually clearly sunlit, the sky was bland and you had replaced the sky with something you liked better. You can do sky replacements from two JPEGs SOOC.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

My photo was backlit and you said you would not take it because of the lighting.

Your alligator is backlit but you decided that was OK even though you've clipped the diffuse highlights and have too dark shadows front and center on the subject. You should have gone back when you had better lighting according to you.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

There are no clipped diffuse highlights but the shadows are quite dark. Active D-Lighting would have helped with that.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

You are wrong. Those are not all specular highlights.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

Too dark in whose judgement?

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

Thanks Bill. I can always depend on you to get right to the heart of the matter.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Those are tiny, insignificant highlights - not diffuse. They have color and only a couple of them come close to being blown in one of the three channels.

The image was captured about as far to the right as possible for those tiny highlights, about 1-1/3 stop brighter than Sunny 16. That was risky. It did not harm the highlights but it's about all that could be done for the shadows considering that Active D-Lighting was not used. Even the first level of Active-D lighting would have helped a lot.

Incidentally, your example was taken at exactly Sunny 16 which is about the limit for brightly lit white clouds. Was that a lucky guess?

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

That would be according to your whacked misunderstanding of white balance. I'm using white balance as Nikon and the world photographic community understands it.

From you Nikon camera's instruction manual: "White balance ensures that white objects appear white, regardless of the color of the light source."

In the back on the left of that scene there's a parked trailer that's white. I put the NEF file into NX Studio and made only one change. I set the white balance from the drop menu as Shade. First image below is that result as Nikon then set the white balance. The foreground is still dark but with the white balance set as Nikon understands it should be the white trailer RGB values are now identical which would make the white object appear white. Looks like Nikon gets it. Have you contacted them at all and explained why they're wrong according to you?

Second image below is my version of the photo and the white trailer is white just as Nikon and the world photographic community understands it should be.

(Download)


(Download)

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

If a highlight isn't specular then it's diffuse. The photo has clipped diffuse highlights -- that's a simple fact.

No. I exposed to hold the diffuse highlights. I know how to do that.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

lipstick on a pig in whose judgement?

The foreground shadows on your subject are too dark because of the backlighting. In my judgement. For the past forty years I've been paid for that judgement. If you'd like technical critique for more of your photos I'd be happy to help.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Nikon, the photographic community and I understand white balance a lot better than you do.

It's not about making something that you assume is white white or gray look neutral and unsaturated. It's about making the colors in the image look reasonable in relation to the ambient lighting. Not all versions of white paint are truly neutral and freshly washed. Just look at the selection of white paints in your local paint store and the endless list of names that are different for each make.

Besides, something that you know is white can look different under different lighting conditions. Take any picture during the golden hours. If you make that precisely white by clicking on it with your eyedropper you will ruin the ambiance.

In daylight there are normally multiple light sources with different white balance values. Direct sunlight has Daylight white balance, the sky has Open Shade white balance, when it's overcast there is a cloudy white balance. Each of these present a different color temperature and tint. But if you divide the image up into sections that are illuminated by each source and make each of them white, the result will be totally unnatural - just like your doctored image.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

"White balance ensures that white objects appear white, regardless of the color of the light source." What about that don't you get? I find that an easy to understand sentence and that trailer is white and so appearing white in the photo makes it look reasonable in relation to the ambient lighting. The foliage color looks reasonable and the red bricks in the bldg. in the back look reasonable and the ducks look reasonable and the water in the fountain looks like water. I set the white balance just the way Nikon set's the white balance for the scene. Go explain to Nikon why they didn't get it reasonable.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

I photograph for me, not for you. The shadows are dark because the shadows were dark when I took the photo.
You are more than welcome to comment on my photos but it probably won't impress me or affect the way I take photographs.
I post some of my photos because I like them and enjoy sharing them with people who enjoy photography. Most of the people who view them enjoy them as well. If you don't it doesn't bother me.
While you were getting paid for passing judgement on someone else's photographs I was getting paid to work on aircraft carrier flight decks. So I will accept that you have a greater knowledge of the technical aspects of photography. I have a greater knowledge of the technical aspects of aircraft electronics and flight characteristics. So I was somewhat distracted from photography for considerable periods of time.
But I've still been a photographer for a long time. And I know what looks good and natural and what doesn't. And I've never seen a porker with lipstick that looked natural or good.