The problem is that the facts have been ignored.
Yes ... consider it.
Close and I am now glad that we can discuss this being on the same page. The arrow in the upper right part of the histogram is the out of gambit warning which is turned on, this is the same indictor that would trip if there was any out of gambit highlights or close to being clipped highlights. Thats the part that is shaded red in the actual picture. In this case its actually giving me a warning that the blue channel is almost out of gambit in the parts its shaded in the actual photo. You can see that it is telling me the level for each channel in the warning areas. We know that in gambit is 256 levels for each channel. In this area that that gambit warning is being tripped the pixel value is Red:152 Green:211 and Blue: 255. So the blue channel is close to being clipped but not the other channels and it isn't actually being clipped. You'd get a false color if it was clipped which would mean you'd have to adjust the HSL values to correct it.
Thats not out of gambit see post above. If there are other color samples you'd like me to take I'd be happy to do so.The problem is that the facts have been ignored.
It would be more productive to actually look at them.
Post #39 points out something very relevant.
In case you missed what was being said, the red arrows show what was being said .. which is the actual scientific fact
Yes ... consider it.
I’m sorry but your missing an important fact. You need to pay closer attention to the histogram and the image rendering in Lightroom. Clipping (loss or detail) for highlights occurs at a luminance value or around 240, 242 to 245 from memory. The clipping warning (red areas depicted in the image preview) are triggered at or close to 255. Natural water can’t appear as depicted in the image in any lighting circumstances absent gross overexposure.
I should have refreshed my browser prior to responding above. Your recent exercise serves to further evidence the clipping in the water. All areas where the luminance exceeds 250 you have little to no chance do recovering any detail. It’s a known limitation of digital imaging. Those areas would be black on a film negative.
The image is overexposed and your eyes should tell you all you need to know.
To the extent your interested in actually appreciating how this works the max luminance value that the camera sensor is able to record is 255. Everything at or beyond this point is clipped.
This is the problem Meta4. Remarks like yours above are equal only to your other OPINION that his (my, and all others reading this) eyes should tell him everything you need to know.
As mentioned previously, it has softened because of motion and a slower shutter speed.
You've done plenty to inject "personal reactions or hyperbole " but absolutely nothing relating to the technical issue.
When it doesn’t.
Here you go again with the strawman tactics- I never said anything about the human eyes perception. Your own efforts in Lightroom reveal significant portions of the water are clipped. This is not subjective it’s reality.
Here we go again..... Did I say I didn't like the photo? I commented on the pleasing composition and the apparent artistic eye of the OP however that isn't relevant to the subject of our discussion.
Again you choose to misrepresent my position. I concede the possibility of genuine misunderstanding however I suspect dishonesty. What I said is that values at or close to 255 are indistinguishable from pure white. I also informed you that unfortunately the overexposure warning indicators in Lightroom can’t be relied on for absolute accuracy. Anyone who is interested can verify both as fact. As @Meta4 has pointed out though- anyone looking at the image can see that the pure white areas in the water aren’t a depiction of motion blur. They are in effect areas if the image that were t recorded. Clipped. What you have shown is evidence the image is clipped. I can’t believe you can’t see that so that makes further discussion a waste of time. Not for the reasons you stated though.
