Use Quote Reply ↓ under the post that you want to reply to. That way we'll know who you're responding to.

The above applies if you import the raw files into NX Studio. If you go with the Picture Control profile that will be applied by default, the sharpening will be very basic and not as good as the sharpening that even a basic photo editor is capable of applying. The more advanced editors will do a much better job.

The SOOC jpegs have the Picture Control adjustments baked in to them and it will be impossible to do a perfect job of reversing them. The same applies to any WB adjustments that were applied in-camera. If you're anticipating any major WB adjustments (due to funny or mixed lighting), raw is a must.

NX Studio will show the adjustments that the jpeg got in camera - which will depend on the Picture Control settings in the camera. NX Studio gives the option of applying the exact same adjustments to the raw files, or if you want you can choose another Picture Control profile to apply. It's worth having a look at the adjustments that the jpeg files get. There's nothing magical about them. They're fairly basic. And the same adjustments are applied to all jpegs, but if you edit the raw file you can give each image tailor-made adjustments.

And leave the camera and lens somewhere warm that has good air circulation.

You can get information on posting images HERE.

PS - Welcome to the site.

This is a quote from the link you provided:-

... "this company has been downplaying the issue for months, all while it continues to sell these drives at a steep discount" ...

Is that the American way?

The single face version works better than the two-face version you posted earlier.

Anecdotal evidence may be on the same level as circumstantial evidence but if it keeps coming it becomes more and more compelling. There's either an issue with the SSDs or the multiple reports of failure are due to bad luck. Which do you think is more likely to be the case?

It might be worth contacting SanDisk. Since it was a failure of their product they might offer to salvage the data for free.

The contrast in the first three is just about right. You wouldn't want the tunnel part to be much darker and you wouldn't want the bright stonework to be harshly bright. The shine on the cobblestones is a nice touch and you wouldn't want to lose that by suppressing the whites or highlights too much. Having the detail in the tunnel just visible is just about right.

For some reason my exported jpeg has noticeably less contrast than the edited image I had in Lightroom. I don't know how to avoid that so I'll leave it as is. But even with weakened tonal contrast the split toning gives added colour contrast between the darks and the brights, so the loss of tonal contrast isn't as detrimental as it could have been. Even if the tonal contrast was at its limits, split toning is a way to add even more contrast to the image while avoiding unwanted effects with the brightness levels. That works with low levels of tint even to the point where it's close to being subliminal. And with higher levels of tint it can look like a monochrome where sepia or some such is the main tint.

Split toning? Yellow-orange for the highlights and blue-green for the darks. #1 is subtle and meant to be barely noticeable (i.e. still B&W - but still effective?) whereas #2 is less subtle and recognisable as a mixture of tints.
.

#1

(Download)

#2

(Download)

Are you asking about recreating the softening effect of a shallow DOF on the background? Or getting rid of motion blur or removing softness due to missing focus?

#4.

Using a teleconverter reduces the effectiveness of the aperture. With a 1.4 teleconverter, f/2.8 becomes the equivalent of f/4 and a 2X teleconverter loses another stop on top of that. Plus there's a loss of image quality.

Tried to make good use of the available darkness .
.

(Download)