In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 06:46:24 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:14:34 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Saturday, 18 November 2017 15:47:01 UTC-8, Alfred Molon wrote:
What do you think about this pictu
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Malays...img.php?pic=10

Photomatix Pro with five RAW images (0EV, +- 2EV, +-4EV);
"photographic" setting.

The water of the waterfall and the sky on top are very bright, while
the
shadow areas in the trees are very dark.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

It's ok, but I was never a fan of the neon-greens this produces.

The greens look OK to me but I suppose it depends upon what you are
used to.

I leaning towards RichA on this one but YMMV...

Get a used calorimeter that works with this:

https://displaycal.net/

Free to download and use...

That's not much help. The question is what was the original green?
There is no such thing as a standard green for foliage. Look at the
range of greens here
https://www.dropbox.com/s/c912omw7w9...00502.jpg?dl=0
or here
https://www.dropbox.com/s/irz2t9v62a...99-br.jpg?dl=0

To a considerable extent it depends upon the light.

I wrote YMMV... And the tip was intended for the OP! The most basic
problem with foliage and digital photography is how well the infrared is
filtered out. The reflexion of IR makes it, the foliage subject less
than subtle variations pending time, whether and light source. My
Olympus Evolt E-300 had a notoriously weak IR filter! :-ppp
--
teleportation kills