So, dbyrd, is the image you posted the accurate color of the wolf? I'm just curious and it brings up a good discussion point. How do we know if what we see and what we get are accurate, or true to nature a week later when we are home looking at the images on the computer?

The answer for 90% of outdoor shooting is to use daylight setting, or the "sun" setting or about 5200 degrees k. You can always warm the image later in post production but you can not ever get back a true representation of what you saw unless you capture the image at the sun's true temperature, this applies to all out door shooting light. Keep in mind you may like the look of warmer, and many do, that's why in the film days people used warming filters, and why haze filters took some of the coolness out of the image, but if you shoot true temps, you will get true colors - you may not like what you see, and it may not be as vivid as you remember it (it most likely wont) but you will be starting with more realistic and true colors (as true as you can get with all the other factors like sensor, and lens quality and camera processor), and as I mentioned, warm it later if you like warm. . .

As for pixel count, it has almost nothing to do with vividness, its all about the lens, and the processing of the image starting with your brain, then the camera then the computer, then the output, ie, fine art, magazine, or internet. . .

Tony