Ok, first off... I don't speak camera terminology. So, keep that in mind as I try to explain this. Like when you wrote, "400 to 640 is 2/3 of a stop" I would (and probably did above) call that two stops because I turned the dial twice. I think you guys call that two "clicks" but I could be wrong about that too. Also where you wrote something like, "I dont know why the camera is set up to do that" its because I may be doing it manually each shot, idk. Ok here it goes...
From day one macro, I took some pics with auto setting on and realized that wasnt going to work. I posted a bury pic of a slender sal with just the eye in focus, and RobertH contacted me to tell me I should be able to get better DOF. I tried his suggestion however I probably didnt understand him because I had to do the opposite to get good detail on a daddylong leg (lol which I realized later, only worked because there is a less amount of DOF required in comparison to a slender sal). So, then I txt Chad. I would text him at least another 50 times over the next 4 months, asking the same questions because I could never understand what he was saying

It took like 20 messages in one day for me to finally get something useful out of him like,"ISO causes grain" then once he finally said that, I knew to adjust iso if the grain wasnt right.
So then Owen Holt started posting his photos on Flickr and I went to the photos I liled and then set my camera up like the photos of his I liked. Dragonfies. So his settings got me in the ballpark and I adjusted from there to get the best result each time. I am aware of the 16 sunny rule. I tried it, but at 100 ISO I think it just came out too nasty ugly dark looking or something. I cant remember why I didnt like the rule, but I remember the results were in less quality than other settings I manually adjusted myself by trail n error, pointing at a sticker bush and feeling out DOF and detail to my liking.
Hers how I go about photography.... First I decide how much DOF I want...what should look clear and what should look blury. Then I manually change my settings (dials on the outside of the camera) to get it as sharp as possible. Through close to 7000+ photos of trial n error, I figured out that taking a slightly underexposed pic gets me sharper detail and a color scheme that can be manipulated in photoshop cc and have a natural look. The photos I took that were exposed correctly like you are taking about above, never had as much detail and when I later increased saturation or vibrance, the color looks fake and unnatural.
When I look at that pic of the horn toad that you brightened, it dosent look natural to me. When I use the settings that you and the internet suggest I dont like the result because it looks like that brightened horned liz shot. Too white and not much color. when I was standing there holding that toad in my hand and looking at it there was much more color in it and that rock didn't look as dull as it does in the photo... That rock was beautifully colorful.
when you darken a "correctly" exposed pic from bright to dark, it Appears to look sharper because the Shadows are darker. however what I noticed about my method is that I take a dark exposure and then lighten it up and the detail is still there (more detaol!) it doesn't get blurry and still has sharp lines. That's why I choose my method instead and always shoot slightly underexposed photos. better color and better detail results.
now the way that I figured this out was I went from a F-13, F-14, F-16 all the way through the camera and I turn that little dial on the left of the display screen to make it slightly brighter and slightly darker until I get the best detail. Then I remember what I did in that situation to get that best detail possible. Although I can kind of follow what you guys are saying I really look at the pictures on my display screen to shoot my photog. when I adjust those little cartoon icons in the display screen I'm looking at the Icons and not the numbers. so I just adjust that dial and I balance it to the little time line thing at the bottom and I check my photos for the detail as I shoot and I've gotten so good at it, that now it only takes a few shots to get the photo I want. so where before I couldn't get action shots of seeing a lizard eating a cricket out of the corner of my eye or something like that...now I can run up and adjust quickly and get that shot before that little sucker gets away
I will try turning off the exposure compensation like you suggested. I understand what you're saying for the most part, I think, LOL and I think that may have something to do with the blurriness or dullness Ive been getting. however like I said before, this is my last year of shooting photography and I may shoot a newt or treefrog once it starts raining but I'm done with photography. there is no opportunity to impress a woman in the field herping community and so I have no reason to stay, period.
I went out one night with Chad to shoot some night Photog with his Flash. he couldn't figure out how to adjust the aperture or something because the way my camera is set up, you have to push a button and hold it down in order to adjust it which he figured out after tinkering with things for a good 5 minutes. I don't know what else he changed in the camera, but he was setting it up for night shots. he has a full frame camera, I think, and so things are a little different from what he explained to me. when he set up the camera, I still couldn't get the rattlesnake tongue to come out Sharp... So out of frustration I think I just put it on the running man setting on the camera and I got this tongue flicker shot I will post below but then again maybe I'm wrong about changing that setting because it was a long time ago and I don't remember. the next time I use the camera, I got this shot of this incredible storm below but my battery of the camera was almost dead and I was only able to get two shots... And then the camera died. the iso setting was changed for night photography and I lost the shots which I could not express how mad I was about that LOL Because it was so windy, the shape of the clouds changed before I could recharge. So i took cellphone video instead. but I realize it wasn't chad's fault, I just needed higher ISO for that night shoot. I ended up changing it and making the grain go away later. but perhaps Chad adjusted that exposure compensation Setting for the night photography? I have no idea and night photography with a flash is a mystery to me and I will not do it.
thanks for your help Chris I know you have a lot more knowledge on the subject and I was never trying to insult you in any way. I've had to figure this out like a caveman and you giving me help now is unimportant. however I think it may be important to other readers so it's good that you explained through this stuff. I'm just like this... I pick up a guitar and I mess around with it until I get sounds out of it that I like...which sound a lot like Kurt Cobain and Jimi Hendrix, because I like how their guitar playing sounds. but it's all by ear and basic knowledge of chords really... and I think I read somewhere that Hendrix learned guitar by playing by ear,which I think kurt probably did too, and so I've always held on to that mythology in coming up with my own style from a more pure and untouched beginning.
So, see these dials in the screen display... Basically I just adjust them to find a good balance between the two. I asked Chad and the other photographers where's the good balance..? how do you find to this..? where's the Kush spot like driving clutch on a manual transmission? ...and I realize they couldn't answer that because that kush spot changes, depending on lighting situations. but I figured it out good enough to get good enough macro shots and thank God this freaking year is over!!!!!!!
20160821_124051 by
California Reptile & Amphibian Appreciation, on Flickr