The EXIF data shows you used manual white balance and had it set to Cloudy.
It also says you shot raw + jpeg.
Can you post a link to the raw file (drop box, whatever)?
It is much better and easier to fix issues like this from the raw file where the white balanced hasn't been baked into it. With raw data you set the white balance in the raw converter to whatever you like to suit the scene
The image lightness looks a little too dark on my screen. Again, much better and easier to fix using raw data instead of a sooc jpeg or jpeg processed from a raw file.
There is nothing wrong with using small apertures (large f-numbers) as long as image quality is not affected too much.
At your focal length I would have used at least 1/400s, f/8 - f/10 (most probably f/8 since it's about where my lens is sharpest for that type of scene) and then let ISO float to whatever the camera wanted to set as long as highlights were not clipped. If shooting raw, you set the image lightness in post processing. ISO is irrelevant as long as highlights are not clipped.
To maximise the quality of the raw data you need to get as much light onto the sensor as possible without clipping important highlights and within your DOF and motion blur requirements (optimal exposure**)
* exposure - amount of light striking the sensor per unit area while the shutter is open ** optimal exposure - the maximum exposure* within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.
It's not really undedited. Even if it's a sooc jpeg then it is a jpeg processed by the camera from the actual raw data according to the "picture style" setting you have set in camera.
To the OP - this is an important point that Danno has made here. If you're trying to get the process straight in your mind, the word 'edited' is likely to give you the wrong idea. When you shot film it needed to be 'developed' before you could view it. The same is true of a digital image, the raw file needs to be 'developed', and there are choices you can make in development which affect how it will look. When you use an in-camera JPEG that development has happened in the camera. Afterwards, you can 'edit' it.
Maybe check you camera's picture style settings because you might have something amiss there.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Glad to help.
I've been there - you get home and realize that the images don't look as good as you remembered. That's why having the raw files is important - it's easier and better to make changes when working with raw data.
The 'fixed' version I showed before was mostly smart sharpening (Topaz Sharpen AI) and global contrast adjustment. There's also a procedure called 'unsharp masking' that gives you local contrast enhancement.
I treated the snowy mountains to some of that, and got:
First step would be to try using your camera in one of the Auto or Semi-Auto modes, and not try to second-guess the built-in smarts of your equipment.
Remember also that digital photography is free, so take multiple shots with various settings, choose the best, and use that information as a guide for future work.
More than 95% of my photography has been carried out with very standard settings (Aperture priority, EC, Auto ISO, Auto WB, JPEG), and it would be a stretch to describe that as an intellectual exercise. The results are very satisfying.
Are you post-processing your shots? Even JPEGs can be improved quite remarkably. You may need to import RAW shots using proprietary software from Canon. Look up Bayer CFA to understand about RAW files.
BTW, certain versions of the Canon 75-300mm zoom aren’t recommended for serious photography. Also, unlike DSLRs, mirrorless cameras can give very realistic previews of your shots as you frame them, including very good information on exposure, such as a live histogram and over-exposure warnings.
Comments