According to the exif data via ViewNX2 you had Active D-Lighting set to auto, which IMO is a good thing. In my experience a shot like this without ADL would probably have appeared over-exposed, and pp of the raw file would have been required for a visually pleasing image.
ADL will generally reduce the exposure on these types of images, perhaps sacrificing some ETTR but certainly protecting the highlights.
Hard to tell without working with the original raw image. And I did say perhaps. I believe the original poster processed the image with Nikon software, since the embedded profile was Nikon sRGB.
After reading this post I went outside with my D7000 and shot some at ADL off, ADL = high (my normal setting in bright contrasty conditions), and ADL = auto. I couldn't find any snow (Austin, Texas) but it was a bright sunny day and there was a large white car across the street to fill the foreground. As one would expect the imaages in increasing level of exposure were ADL = high, auto, and off. Even though the off image came in with some highlight clipping I was able to recover/reduce exposure and arrive at little or no blown highlights. One can only really tell IMO by rendering in ACR in ProPhoto.
Interesting. I experience some overexposure last weekend on a trip when shooting camp events in highly wooded areas during the middle of the day, but never considered D-lighting as a possible solution. I'll have to try bumping ADL up next time.
Sat 05-Mar-11 06:29 PM | edited Sat 05-Mar-11 06:46 PM by elec164
>Side-question, can one fix that key-stoning in post very >easily? If so, then we don't need tilt-shift lenses for >architecture? > Yes you can, but it is always better to start off with the best image you can so a tilt shift would be the best choice, PP the second.
It didn't take long. In Photoshop I first increased canvas size. Then went to filter/distort/lens correction. I then used vertical correction to 100% which got it most of the way. Then corrected the rest with edit/transform/perspective. Cropped and sharpened. You could spend some time cloning in areas to maintain the aspect ratio I imagine.
Perhaps there is a better method then this that someone else could chime in with and provide.
>I'm guessing if one shot the composition a little looser you >wouldn't have to increase canvas?
The canvas size increase is to avoid losing part of the building when you stretch the perspective. Basically when you are done with the perspective correction the image becomes a trapezoid which then needs to be cropped. If you do not enlarge the canvas before the lens distortion correction you would loose the top of the building.
>Anyhow since I am limited to Capture NX2 I would be interested >too if anyone has a tip for that software also (although I'm >guessing that might be a stretch for NX2!).
I believe that may be true in that I think you need a pixel editor to make such corrections and CNX2 is only a development/adjustment tool with limited pixel editing abilities (if any).