Not too happy - overexposed

Odd I've not noticed this yet. Will check on pc tomorrow or Sunday. I've shared a few direct from flickr so maybe it is not affecting those, shared that way.

Chrome on the left pointed at DPRevived, Photoshop on the right.

I hate windows photos tool. It's awful especially zoom tool which doesn't give you quick access (or any) to a 100% view which I like. I used windows photos viewer as you do but with some files it makes them very dark. Never my jpgs though. Just some random png files I've saved from Web look darker sometimes for some reason. Nothing I've edited and produced a jpg off myself goes dark.

The sky is definitely blown in your jpeg, but the brightness looks the same on the site and on my computer in Lightroom. I'd be happy to mess with your RAW if you'd like, but I suspect the sky is toast there too - the metering went with the mostly dark scene and let the sky go (that's what exposure compensation is for). Turn on your blinkies and next time you won't be surprised.

@AlanSh
You may want to dial +3 EV and spot-meter from the brightest portion of the sky.

Always better to meter for the brightest part of the scene, then adjust the shadows afterwards. Once a bright feature gets washed out, it’s very difficult to get it back….but shadows can be lightened more effectively.

I see a link only to a jpeg in your later post.

The raw file would help much more in trying to see what happened and to see if the final image can be improved.

It is correctly exposed. Well, it isn't of course or is depending on a point of view. The large dark, grass area dominates the image and the exposure is right for that. The sky is much brighter and so is blown out.
You won't get better unless you expose to keep the sky from blowing out and raise the darker areas in processing.

There is detail in the sky so you can recover it to some extent (I tried in DXO) , if you have the raw file there would probably be enough there to make the sky acceptable.

Exposing with digital is usually straight forward enough. You don't care what the image looks like on the back of the camera, just check the histogram and make sure essential highlights are not blown.

Like this:

Four minute exposure in bright sunshine. Forgot the ND filter. 😁😁😁

What I intended

Still, I quite like the accident, has the look of an incomplete watercolour painting...

I like that, was it deliberate or real luck? I assume the former

Hi Alan,

If the photos are not posting correctly, they probably lack the color profile. You web will then default to RGB. This is most notable when one works in an aRGB workflow and fails to convert to RGB for web.

Auto exposure is an estimate no matter how your meter. You must use your eyes, or the camera's tools such as blankies and/or histogram and then adjust exposure compensation as necessary.

Morris

I think you mean sRGB instead of RGB in both cases.

I've had that perception, as well...the photo looking "darker" to my eyes when viewed in the post. However, when I compare the fullscreen/1:1 display against the fullscreen display in Pictures, the photos both look to same to me. I've chalked it up to a visual perception issue. Sometimes, we think we're seeing something that we're not actually seeing :)

Are the surrounds the same?