>>3755775Yeah, this photo was a bit of a bad example. I used it simply because it was the first I came across that exemplified the blown highlights.
This is maybe a better example, since it's a less extreme image. It was a sunny day with direct sunlight, but I am not sure if the left image should be as blown out as it is. The right image is halfway up on the shadows and almost as far as I can go on the highlights just to get some detail in the shadows and highlights. It just seems a bit excessive to me, though it may not be. Of course, this is without touching the exposure, but the rest of the image is fairly well-exposed.
>>3755800I am pretty sure my exposure compensation was fine for the images, at least what I manually set. Correct me if I'm wrong, but exposure compensation is controlled by the dial with +3 - -3 on it? I have never intentionally moved it from 0.
>>3755816Thanks for the offer, but I'm not too worried about the editing side of things. I've had very few shots that were beyond editing salvation. It's pretty rare that blacks are crushed or highlights are blown to the point where there's no actual detail. It's more that the RAW files straight into LR are extremely 'contrasty' and need an amount of push/pull that is close to the limits of the program if I want a normal looking image sometimes.
Is there a general method we use here to upload RAWs?
