To make the point, here’s a shot taken at 17h today. Perfectly exposed for the sun reflecting on the sea with detail on the foreground rocks - a full 13 stops range, which PhotoLab recovered
The point is, there really is no point to the image apart from demonstrating ETTR. It’s just a picture, not an image, if you get my drift 
I’m guessing that you could go back there perhaps an hour from now, and get both the setting sun, and the reflection, especially so with your filters.
I guess I’m just weird - if I get the reflection of the sun, I also want the sun in the photo - which I can do very early in the morning, and very late at night. I would also want some detail in the rocks at the bottom. I think I have some of those photos on this laptop, but they will mostly be from my Fuji X-series, and they may or may not be in raw mode.
You might say “give someone an inch, and they want a mile!!” 
Typical photo from a Pondicherry fishing village, from when I was very ignorant about PL3… maybe I still am quite ignorant, but less so than before… It was taken with my current Fuji X100f, and I thought I knew the basics, but PL3 wouldn’t (and still can’t) open the Fuji raw files from the X-Trans Sensor.
I never did get this image to look good. I should have been using ‘raw’, not ‘jpg’, or both. I may actually still have some ‘raw’ files from the Fuji on another drive.
The “.dop” file is from PL3, if that matters…
I haven’t yet opened up the image in PL4 I’m sure I tried to improve the image…
05-12-2019-Fishing Village, Pondy_DSCF3175.jpg.dop (13.5 KB)
I made a copy of the image in a different location. I didn’t want to disturb what I did only two years ago - you can all have a big laugh at my expense.
I couldn’t resist, and edited my copy, turning off all the things I didn’t understand in 2019.
Gee, it’s like looking at myself in a time machine - I was totally ignorant about PL3. I’m still ignorant in some ways, but less so than I was back then.
…and I sure hope DxO adds the Fuji X100f (and the others) in the next release!!!
Here’s the result:
Actually, unless the sun isn’t, at least, partially masked, I simply don’t include it and no amount of filtration can equalise the dynamic range from the sun to dark shadows. And, in this shot, the part of the sky with the sun was gin clear and would have been totally impossible to get within range.
The choice is include the sun, for better composition, or exclude the sun to avoid having part of the image “out of range”.
For me, a burnt-out sun is preferable, since nobody expects to be able to look at the sun anyway, but the lower on the horizon the sun gets, the better. Without the sun, the whole point of the photo is excluded - having a reflection but not having the thing causing the reflection seems wrong - to me.
Maybe a little trickery is in order, to “repair” the hole just enough so it’s no longer a “hole”?
I’m curious what all of you think about this:
https://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-read-and-use-histograms/
The scale goes from 0 to 255, pure black to pure white.
Apparently some of my images really push the limits of what can be done.
Maybe there are better articles on how to deal with this, for scenes that include pure white and pure black. My interpretation of what Joanna is telling me is that my D750 sensor has a wider range, before anything goes pure white or pure black than my M10. Presumably the D810 goes wider, and the D850 goes wider yet.
I’m also wondering about color. I doubt that all the color scales match each other, so perhaps the red channel can be clipped at one end, and the blue channel at the other end, and shifting the scale one way or the other will make one color “better” at the expense of another.
I apologize if I’m using the wrong wording. I do know what I’m trying to say, but I don’t know the proper way to ask.
I’m also wondering why we can’t make a scale of 0 to 512, which would make things easier. Is the problem with the math, or the sensor, or the electronics, or ???
Changing the bit depth wouldn’t change anything. The histogram will look exactly the same.
The bottom figures, 0-255, are expressing the possible values of a bit depth of 8, 512 would be a bit depth of 9. You could replace the values with percentages, 0-100, thats bit depth independent.
George
Suppose, the pic is important to you as you kept it.
The fishermen, while turned to the viewer and being prominent in the composition, are the ‘subject’ and (should) catch the interest. – Unfortunately they are missing some illumination (not enough reflection on them) to be better recognized, which is causing ‘disappointment’ to someone, who has no memory of that moment. – Instead, the crossed poles and the bird very much at the edge gain interest as there is the highest contrast in the pic.
Technically there is no real chance to bring back the necessary light. Software can’t do magic – neither from the (non-existent) RAW-file nor an even more limited 8bit JPEG.
While I think it to be unfair to only comment on your pic, I’ve been looking for something similar, quiet and relaxing. – Looking back at the raw-file, I centered on the sun (to straighten horizon line and minimize lens reflection), used the available dynamic range to relighten the scenery, kept the interesting silhouettes and finally cropped for composition.
to add
→ Using PhotoLab 4 to process sunset photos - #277 by Joanna
Not forgetting that, if you don’t use the minimum ISO, you are not going to get the full,
advertised, dynamic range … … yielding better shadow detail if you ETTR.
It worked even with this ‘antique’ cam.
Imagine a raw image file. Nowadays, they deliver values in a 14 bit range. If we took that for the histogram, it would need to go from 0 to 16383 and if we wanted to see a histogram showing all of it, we’d need a screen that is at least 16384 pixels wide…
Instead of displaying a 14 bit wide histogram, only an 8 bit histogram is displayed, which means that each of the values between 0 and 255 include a range of 6 bits. This means that “0” includes all values between 0 and 63, “1” includes 64 to 127" etc, until “255”, which includes 16’319 to 16’383.
Using an 8 bit histogram is adopted by most applications. Apps like RawDigger can go beyond that.
I don’t know, if this is the right thread, but I will try to show you my problem. During the last summer i made a pale looking photo of the lake Tegernsee:
In Lightroom i don’t had to spend much time for this result without local adjustments:
In Photolab 4 this is my best result:
But the picture has still too much haze and it’s looking dark. Can you give me a hint, what can I do in Photolab to made this picture looking as with Lightroom?
Thank you very much!
DxO PhotoLab can remove haze with the DxO ClearView Plus tool.
DxO ClearView Plus is available in the Elite edition, but not in the Essential edition.
Sidenote: Haze us a natural phenomenon. I’d not try to completely eliminate it.
Thank you for your answer. Indeed, i have the elite version and I can use ClearView, but when I raise this slider, the picture is getting darker.
This is going to be true for most of us some of the time.
But, take this image as an example…
At first glance, it might appear to be a fairly low contrast subject but, in fact, it fills the histogram end to end without any adjustments.
Whereas, if you take this shot, exposed for the sun on the left of the sky…
… at first glance, the histogram shows that the shadows are severely blocked…
And yet, after using PL, the result is…
… with a histogram…
See @platypus reply for an explanation of “squashing” 14 bits of information into an 8 bit histogram.
But histograms do not determine how many levels of tone that a camera can record, they are just a (very imperfect) way of trying to show the distribution of those different levels of tone.
If I take the original image of the waves on the rocks, with no adjustments, and export it to JPEG, I’m going to get approximately the same JPEG image that I would have got if I had shot it in JPEG on the camera.
If I then apply the same adjustments to that JPEG file in PL as I did to the RAW file, I get…
… with a histogram of…
Compare that to the corrected RAW image and histogram and you will see that the JPEG image is “cruder” in its representation of colours, especially of the pebbles on the beach in the foreground. And the histogram is decidedly “lumpy”, where @platypus explanation of bunching levels together has forced the many subtle levels into one bunch with the same level.
In fact, your M10 has the same bit depth (14 bits) as your D750, so there is no difference in the number of bits.
But, where there is a difference is in the way the sensor reacts to a range of light falling on it.
You can see that both the Nikon cameras can be used at lower ISO than the Leica: the D810 at 64, the D850 at 32, but the Leica can only go down to 100. Apparently, this is a major contributing factor to the wider dynamic range, with the Leica having a range of 13 stops but the Nikons both able to cope with 14.8 stops. When you consider the each stop is double/half the luminance of its predecessor, that means, not roughly 1/5 more range, but 4x more “range”.
Not forgetting that, if you don’t use the minimum ISO, you are not going to get the full, advertised, dynamic range. For example, at 1600 ISO, with your Leica, you only get 10 stops, with the D810 you get 10.7 and the D850, you get 11.6 - the D750 comes out at 11.2 (better than the D810)
Which is why, for your sunset shots, your Nikon would be the better choice, even at 1600 ISO, because it can cope with twice the difference between minimum and maximum light levels, thus yielding better shadow detail if you ETTR.
I know that Platypus has already replied but, this thread is about sunset pictures, so you would have been better starting a new thread for your topic so that it doesn’t get lost in this very long thread.
This is normal. You also need to adjust the tone curve or selective tonality sliders
Haze in a photo tends to represent the lighter parts of the image. If you Dehaze (Clearview) then you remove the haze and therefore the overall image darkens.
I tried it another time and now I’m satisfied. This time I changed Clear View at the beginning and afterwards the tone curves 
. Thank you!
Before:
After:
To get the sky more dehazed you can use local adjustment and gradient to add local clearview on that section. Or a controlpoint.
Global clearview can be sharpen things too much on higher settings.
If you have filmpack you could use fine contrast with local adjument to keep sharpening by clearview within limits.
In retrospect, I agree. I wasn’t thinking clearly. I woke up in the middle of the night last night, thinking about this, and wondering what the key numbers I need to find from my camera information, to understand how well it will, or won’t, deal with “dynamic range” Megapixels is something totally different, so that’s separate.
Simple question - what data would I need to find in the specifications for Joanna’s new D850, to compare it with my cameras? Also, how would I find this kind of information about different brands of film? I realized last night how what I call “dynamic range” may or may not be capable of capturing a specific scene.
I think I need to re-read this topic, and find the related information that has already been posted here. I don’t think I understood it correctly.
The dynamic range is what your sensor can capture between the min and max expressed in stops, photo world 
It’s analogue. The graphs @Joanna showed from dxomark is just expressing that related to the isso you choose. Do you understand those graphs?
George
