I gave a few thoughts on brightness in the middle of this post, link.
I don’t want to give the impression that there is an absolute right and wrong about brightness levels. It is obviously and ultimately a question of personal preference and interpretation. Although, having said that, if large areas of your processed file are clipping in one of the colour channels, that is a bit of a warning sign.
One can have a calibrated monitor from the shop, but if one is using it in a brightly lit room, one will tend to brighten the photos quite a bit. Conversely, if the same monitor with the same calibration is used in a pitch black room, one will be turning down the brightness quite a lot to make it “look right”. The same goes for the on-screen wallpaper or background that might be visible when editing photos: if it is very bright or very dark, it will affect what do you think looks right. However, that is why there are guidelines about the room illumination levels to use while editing photographs, and also for the grey levels on the screen backgrounds.
It is there in RawTherapee for me, under Lens Profiles/Manual/Camera=E-M5/Samyang/7.5mm ƒ/3.5 UMC Fish-eye MFT. I can’t recall if it is there by default, or if I found it somewhere when I started using that lens about 6 years ago.
I’m not using software that has sophisticated color manipulation, and that’s what this image seems to need. With global tools, if you deal with the yellowish green foliage, it’s at the expense of the sky…
I see this a bit in my Nikon-captured greenery; the matrix camera profiles yield more yellowish greens than the recent LUT profiles I’ve been able to make from camera-measured spectral response data. I really think this has to do with characterizing more precisely each channel, so that the high red band doesn’t mix too much with the mid-band green…
@Underexposed: Just had a look at your xmp and you should have a look at a hue based parametric mask for local contrast 1 to make the transition from intense darker blue to light (almost white) blue a lot softer.
Admittedly I did not put a lot of time fine-tuning it but I’m getting rather decent result with the following numbers:
I’ll give it a try. I was throwing everything at the image to try to match the jpeg colors. The only way may be to have a LUT for the camera. Everyone gets a lot more green than the jpeg, so what did the scene really look like?
In my edit I used the L channel to accomplish something similar. But both our edits differ and using the h channel seems to be working better for yours.
I really don’t know what the greens in the original scene looked like. I never look at the embedded jpegs to be honest. Those are created in camera by (closed source) algorithms based on settings that will not be present in the RAW. I think they are useless.
There are a whole lot of interpretations present in this thread. I’m guessing that most, including my own, are probably too saturated when compared with the actual scene. So in the end: Personal choice and esthetics.
After examining the dt versions, I felt the one by @csponge was extremely close to the jpg. I duplicated it and compressed the history. Then I used denoise (profiled) to remove some noise in the sky. I used drawn masks and reduced the power factor in a color balance module to more closely, in my view, match the jpg pond. I added a very little blue to the trees behind the center pond area. Then I used exposure and color zones following instructions in Darktable Tricks - #26 by BzKevin to reduce fade in the sky. There’s a little yellow on the left side of the trees behind the center pond area that I might add, if I can, when I have time to play with it more.
to him.
.