Hopefully the tools you use will find that both images “make sense”.
Sorry, I’m not interested in test shots. – Go back to the photos, ‘we’ already edited and learn from them.
To get a quick overview you can switch on Active corrections. Then deactivate this button and play with the tools listed before.
Will do, this evening.
When I get to see what “we” have done (you all get 99% of the credit, not me) I get the most satisfaction out of taking another photo, and using the things I’ve learned, edit it better than my previous attempt. As to the 24mm, I was starting to think that either the lens had a problem, or I had made a mistake.
Once you all show me something, and I see how it works, I immediately want to try it on a new image. Most of the time this works - ever so often I’m left scratching my head, until I figure out the reason.
It’s not you, it’s me. I can watch PhotoJoseph do something on my computer, pause the video, and try it on my own, quite often not getting the expected result. So I watch again, and try again. If it still doesn’t work, I play his video just a little, then do the exact same thing. Then repeat. The things you show me are similar - I need to think them through, and understand them. Once I know “why” you did it, it not only works for me, but it becomes part of my “toolbox”. As an example, to make an area lighter, I always used to use a tool to reduce the exposure. Then Joanna corrected me, do it by reducing the shadow slider. I’m not totally sure WHY it works differently, but it does seem more effective. Also, I used to use tools like a volume knob on my audio device. Now I use it so much more sparingly.
I’m still amazed by things that should be obvious. On my ASUS display, when something looks good in the evening, I know it’s good. By contrast, if I slide the image to my iMac, it rarely looks as good. Before PL4 and all of you, I never realized how important this is. So for all these years, when I thought I was making beautiful photographs on my screen, that might have all been for nothing.
In two weeks I expect to be using a Mac Mini that I’m getting from my nephew. The display will be the ASUS, calibrated. If my iMac becomes a second display for the Mini, it will also be calibrated.
Yes, lots of comments, but I keep at it until it (eventually) makes sense. Then I find new concepts, such as the “eraser” for local adjustments. I week ago I didn’t realize this. Pretty difficult to spell words correctly until you know the alphabet. 
One lesson I learned from that is to not even try next time. If something is pretty much in deep shadow, it’s a waste of time to struggle to make it look like it wasn’t in shadow. That photo is very frustrating to me. On the other hand, I never would have learned my lesson if I didn’t at least try. I guess it depends on how deep the shadow is. Then Joanna said it didn’t need to be brought back at all - she could see a little of the color without modifying it.
Maybe one of the reasons I often do shoot into the sun, is because I was told not to.
Regarding what you wrote up above, I guess my plan is to bring out the sunset colors, and ignore what’s in the shade - but in the image I did last night, maybe I brought them out too much. Last night, I thought it was fine. When I woke up, it looked “too colorful”. Maybe I have “selective memory”, and I “remember” what I wanted to see, not what I actually did see. But what I ended up last night is close to the way the sky looked to me… I kept taking photos, and the colors started fading from one photo to the next. The sky at the left has already faded somewhat, and that “fading” moved from left to right, until all the golden light had vanished…
I am thoroughly confused. I downloaded your “.dop” file, put it into my folder for PL4 and the image didn’t change - it was still my last view, with my watermark.
I deleted every file in that folder other than the “.nef” and again copied your “.dop” into the folder. Nothing changed.
I thought all I needed to do was replace my .dop file with yours. What am I missing? Your image is “lower” than mine, so it should be instantly obvious.
Once I replace my old “.dop” file with yours, do I need to do something else to get PL4 to recognize your “.dop” file?
Well, they look like reasonably well exposed ordinary photos.
No overt signs of over or under-exposure.
Did you mean to post the originals?
You may need to delete the database and cache. See my message here
Or this.
George
i don’t know enough of this but is CA not a more object aura kind of thing?
a mis a linement of light? not a glow spread like this?
with a CA tool or manual?
i see that you leave the greenisch low left to mid left be present, (green bridgelight i think)
true as in it hide’s more trouble when raising.
Are you more like expose so it’s a silhouette in dark blackisch way or expose as much as possible to the right in order to have as much detail as you can get in the shadows?
(i gues that looking at it just with your eye’s they adjust and there was more to see then this.)
i use EV compensation in my camera to dail up the shadows as much as possible or use different exposures by hand or bracketting so i can choose at home.
what i find strange in this particular image is the colors in the water surface.
is this reflection or CA?
i made some, but the haze and dim diffused light makes it difficult to create enough contrast and thus detail. i have my first selection. (watch it in full on tv to see the flaws.)
my G80/pl12-60mm should handle this cold and snow. i used a plastic Zipback to switch lenses.
One thing i forgot was letting the system slowy warmup in the halway so there was some condens( like your glasses do when you walk inside) when i looked in the lens.
(there isn’t a vacuüm in there so it’s best to leave it in the transportbag for a wile so it can slower warming up.)
No harm done this time, no drops so no residu left.
wel i think i go back in the spring.(for reference )
some i like 
i wasn’t cold good clothing and shoes. only walking through snow is heavy for the leggs and sitting down for months (covid rules) wasn’t a good preperation so to speak.
bad knees so i they reacted same as my muscles on the spot… auch. But no pain no gain… 
Yes!
… and when he took the photo with the fisherman, he better had taken care of the horizon line to avoid to ‘cut’ his neck. Instead, lower the camera to bring him up against the sky or raise the camera a bit to position the silhouette against the water while reducing the (empty) sky … for better composition.
Before I do anything else, where do I find those two settings? I assume they should both be checked, as you have in your capture.
Hi Mike. They’re in the Preferences dialog but, if they weren’t already set, you wouldn’t have been able to post dop files as you have been doing
Before I do that, I will:
I’m guessing that the image will still show the way I modified it. Hopefully, with no more “.dop” file, it will display the original image, un-changed.
Just loading the image will not create a dop file.
You still won’t see a dop file yet
You need to, at least, either select another image or deflect the current one in order to generate a dop.
You will still see the change because PL will have also written it to the database.
Other than that, once you have made a first change, PL will write the dop when you close it.
Unless the ‘import’ choice hasn’t been selected.
George
I think I have found a solution.
First, these are my preferences:
If I delete my old “.dop” file, and place a new “.dop” file in the folder, perhaps from one of you, I can then click here:
…and finally click here:
I think this is why I was struggling to use the “.dop” files I have been downloading from this forum. They download into my “downloads” folder on my iMac, and I then manually move them to the appropriate folder, but I didn’t know that I needed to manually IMPORT them to see what you had done. I struggled with Wolfgang’s recent “.dop” and apparently I then needed to manually import it into PL4.
Wow.
Wolfgang, thanks to your making such an obvious change to the image, I finally caught on to what my computer was (not) doing.
Knowing what I do now, I should be able to do what you suggested - but after breakfast!
@oxidant – ref to post #224
I don’t know enough of this but is CA not a more object aura kind of thing?
a mis a linement of light? not a glow spread like this?
[ W: I solved this problem (and more) ] with a CA tool or manual?
I see that you leave the greenisch low left to mid left be present, (green bridgelight i think)
what i find strange in this particular image is the colors in the water surface.
is this reflection or CA?
Just open the pic with “my” dop-file (maybe better to copy everything in a separate folder).
[ and I always had to delete these watermarks to be able to see the pics in PL4 ]
– You will find out, how I set CA corrections (no manual). When toggling on/off you see the enhancement on the outsides. The building’s silhouettes appear clearer, while the glow spread / aura in the skyline’s center is diminshed without vanishing. To me, the nice glow suits the ‘burning sky’ very well.
– Well, and I didn’t bother at all with different light speckles in the water. Instead I tried to find out about the scenery’s appearance and what has impact.
So, I cropped off the empty sky and added local adjustments (2x graduated filters). One is controlling light and vibrancy and the second one colour temperature (lowered by 200° Kelvin). Finally, I got this nice balanced colour contrast, which in conjunction with a smooth vignette directs the viewers eye to the center and its contrasting little boats, the brighter reddish reflection as result of the ‘burning sky’.
When analyzing a photo first place, I try to figure out the ‘inherent message’, what the pic is telling
(what is there), what the photographer’s intention (most probably) has been and IF that fits together (my interpretation). Being highly subjective, this can lead to misunderstandings but then also and more importantly to healthy conversations. Similar to discussions, I try to imagine what the photographer wanted to convey (and if he/she succeeded).
With that, my focus is not to critize or to look for technical imperfections, which I had long enough in a photoclub (also run the homepage for at least 10 years), but to show a ‘better’ example.
– BTW, ever so often I found myself focusing on perfection, but ignored that the pic had little to none potential (guess, I wanted to ‘save’ it). That is not to say to throw out everything, what’s not ‘right out of the box’, but to recognize if it’s worth the effort [like commonly said: garbage in, garbage out].
Oh well, that turned out much longer than intended.
have fun, Wolfgang
understood, and i am often starting to look for imperfections so i can decide if i can work around it.
Then what i think i would like to bring out. and fix the things which stick out as not what i want.
i think non of the image’s i make are technically right/perfect. (maybe by accident 
)
So i assume most of us has the same “problem” and i try to shoot around the difficulties so i can select in post the one who has the least visual imperfections.
i loaded yours and i think the only thing i would add is +11 selective tone shadow.
i am lucky i am in the digital era so any garbage delete is costing me no money…
Peter
