Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

I did, apparently, miss --to some extent-- the point you tried to make, Paul. But not entirely.

People here are clearly at different stages or progressions in their "photographic journeys" (gawy I hate that watery, treacle-y non-phrase-y phrase of 'photographic journey' because it's so.... so......... worthless and poorly-defined).

As regards anybody addressing a raw file image (or parts thereof) that is felt to be "too dark" it's conclusively true that for anybody to viably address its 'problem', it would be necessary for a commentor to have an untouched raw file with which to work and/or address. That's possible, but doing/providing that may be beyond the capabilities of some. Which leaves the casual viewer/commentator with the problem of assessing whatever's been provided, and that's like writing a book review having only glanced at the book's cover.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

That is not necessarily required to provide good advice at shadow recovery. Results of shadow recovery are somewhat dependent upon ISO used, this can be seen by the commentor from the exif, as well as camera model e.t.c.

Dynamics5

Any theories to explain problem and possible fix?!

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

Uh huh. The exif data is the ultimate cure-all/opioid inducing mana of truth and how-come-itistic opinion-making drek. 'Cuz everything's ISO dependent and there's a Cheshire cat sitting--and pontificating softly and soothingly on it's spore-filled perch-- while holding the sucky end of a hookah's glowing bowl and declaring the image was shot improperly (according to Anstil Dadamadams or sumbody).

Shadow recovery is (somewhat???) dependent upon ISO? Well, I guess, maybe, it's not as if ISO isn't a factor. When you don't otherwise know what you're doing.

What a crock. Almost as big and toothy a crock as knowing what brand of camera somebody used.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The UHH community helps best, those that help themselves .... In this case, knowing you're a LR user, one can even action the necessary updates, if you would attach a converted JPEG, given the RAW will be too large to attach. We can even respond back with a DNG that you can import back into LR and 'see' the editing, giving exact, or possible, ideas to action the RAW.

Bill_de Loc: US

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/tool-techniques/dodge-tool.html

---

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

So, 'actionable help' is not part of your interest in this thread?

R.G. Loc: Scotland

As Linda said earlier, it's about dynamic range. It's also about how the camera metered the scene. If you used evaluative metering the camera's assessment of the required exposure settings would have been influenced by the large area of very bright sky. Compared to that, the shadows aren't just a little bit darker - they're a lot darker. The camera prioritised saving the highlights over saving the shadows, which required a relatively low exposure.

If you used Highlight Protected metering (or whatever Canon call it), that effect will have been even more pronounced.

Even if you used Centre Weighted metering, all it takes is a bright enough area within the area that's being metered to force the exposure to be low. If your posted image is uncropped, the sky goes down at least as low as the horizontal centreline and probably includes the centre spot.

Your eye-brain combination would have enabled you to see into the shadows better than the camera could, giving you the perception that the shadows weren't that dark, when in reality they were, especially when compared to the brightness of the sky.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

To our OP, these are the types of questions the original Canon EXIF, via DPPv4, can be easily used to confirm. Then, ideas of changes to your metering approach, aka your image-capture process, might become actionable.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Upload a full size file and check the save original box so we can see the EXIF information and derive a histogram.

SnappyHappy Loc: Chapin, SC “The Capitol of Lake Murray”

If you exposed this shot for the deepest shadows how did you keep the highlights from blowing out?

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

Nope, 'actionable help' is not a big part of my agenda. In this thread or elsewhere.

My 'interest' is collectively elsewhere.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Look at the area right in the corner of the building...it is dark but shows lots of detail. The rest of the building appears to be covered with some sort of glass material. Did I understand that this shot was made through a bus window?I'm not convinced that there's any failure of your camera, but rather an interaction between the tinted and probably polarized bus windows and the material on the building...note absolutely no visible reflections from the building. Alternatively, was there perhaps a polarizing filter on the camera? There are no tell-tale "smudges" to indicate this might be the case, but the effect might likely be the same.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Exactly.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

The problem here is the photographer is missing an understanding of dynamic range and the subtleties of ideal exposure. The long term fix would be a studious effort by said photographer to gain knowledge of dynamic range and the subtleties of ideal exposure.

The short term fix is to ask random people on the internet how to fix the problem.