Bunyip are you talking to me about the one picture from vacation? (And doesn't everyone just love that illusive hair somewhere inside my camera?!)
I was shooting manual, and I believe the camera does not allow for exp comp at all when doing so. But yes, I should have chimped to see. But wouldn't increasing anything have caused the sky to blow out? Maybe we should take that trip again for me to test it out.
Actually, yes. Sorry I didn't make it clear: I thought my reply would "lob" next to your post.
This is the problem with photography, in that our "means" place constraints on our intentions. In a way, we are trying to cover a 21 foot long table with a 6 or 7 foot long table-cloth: it can't be done.
Of course, digital processing allows one to take several shots, each covering a different part of the 21 foot table, and then to make a montage of the lot into one "composite".
So, its true, in the shot under discussion, essentially you have to decide which is more important, the sky or the headland? Since there is little of interest in the sky -in this shot- it may make sense to let it blow out in favour of the headland.
Of course, if you wanted "perfection", you could take several shots (exposing for each) and collage the lot in PP. (This is not "my bag". I try to get the best available shot, within the limitations of the camera, and leave it at that.)
