Exposing for the mid-tones

[RedTele]

Can someone explain to me the benefit of what Lee Filters is describing here (scroll down to "Metering")?

http://leefilters.com/index.php/camera/ndgrads

I don't have a light meter and I've always shot using methods closer to the basic method described on the page. What's the difference in outcome?

Is it that if you do the basic method you have less control over where the base exposure is and might get it wrong? Like if the foreground should be mostly shadows but you meter it TTL, camera then bumps up the overall exposure too much? Using the "Advanced" method you set the lower bound first for the shadows, then take down the highs to bring it within the camera's dynamic range. Did I get that right?

 

[HoppyUK]

There's frankly too much twaddle talked about exposure these days, when the time that it could be quite a complicted business, ie when shooting film, has long gone. With digital, it's all there on the LCD, together with a histogram, and further aided by the brilliant invention of blinkies (highlight alert). What more could you possibly want?

And there are more difficult questions to be answered when using a grad (not that they're difficult to use). Such as, what density (if you have a choice), hard or soft (if you have a choice) - and both decisions are significantly affected by focal length - and where should I position it?

When you've sorted that out, the chances are that taking a standard evaluative/matrix reading will give you a pretty good result. And you need to do that because the final effect of the grad needs to be checked at the shooting aperture - not that it varies much with f/number, but it does a bit.

Then if it's not right, adjust exposure with compensation or whatever your preferred method of working is, based on what the LCD/histogram/blinkies is telling you, and your interpretation of what correct exposure is. It's really not hard.

Look at it this way, if you were shooting on an overcast day with dark clouds without a grad, you wouldn't bother with all that spot metering stuff. There's no point.

 

[RedTele]

I'm not sure if you actually read the article but obviously you can very easily get the basic exposure right easily with the technologies available as you described. The question posed was more subtle and about maximising the potential of available dynamic range.

To illustrate what I meant in the last paragraph in the OP:

If you have, say this much you want to capture,
----------|------------------------|-----------
but only have on the camera this much DR,
-----------------|--------o--------|-----------
basic method would yield, with use of grad,
-----|--------o--------|<<<<<<|-----------
whereas method 2 would yield
----------|--------o---------|<<<|-----------

Either of the last two would appear as "correctly exposed" on the histogram but obviously because the amount of grad used was different, the overall sky/ground balance is different. Not saying one is better than the other though.

 

[HoppyUK]

Too much science You need to understand the underlying fundamentals, but there's no need to make a meal of it.

The whole point of a grad is to reduce dynamic range, and the best way to decide on the optimum level there is by looking at the LCD, though usually experience is a pretty good judge and most people don't have too much choice anyway. It doesn't matter if the meter says two stops or three stops grad - and you will get vastly differing readings if you wave a spot meter about - the acid test is what does it look like?

Then check the hostogram and see where the peaks and troughs lie. Then slide them left or right with exposure level to optimise dynamic range capture on the sensor.

 

[RedTele]

I'm an engineer by trade, so underlying tech is interesting to me. Photography is an art and what matters is how it looks at the end, but there's no harm in learning the mechanics of what the camera's doing

 

[HoppyUK]

I'm an engineer by trade, so underlying tech is interesting to me. Photography is an art and what matters is how it looks at the end, but there's no harm in learning the mechanics of what the camera's doing

Yes, understanding is key. Then you will know the best/easiest way to do it, and IMHO that does not include a hand meter for this kind of task. You have a very able meter in the camera, armed with various metering methods such as evaluative/matrix, centre weighted and semi-spot.

You can also take an incident reading with it if you like (measuring the brightness of the light falling on the subject, rather than the light reflected from it) and that will pin mid-grey to the centre of the histogram. Let's say 18% grey for sake of argument, but modern digitals often use a lower figure than that and you really need to calibrate the meter to the camera, according to your personal interpretation of 'correct' exposure.

But in addition, you also have an LCD image which is a very good rough guide, though it can be hard to assess in variable ambient light. So there is the histogram which tells you exactly what you have actually got, as opposed to the meter reading which is only a good guess, and has to assume a number of variables about which is knows nothing but are automatically netted out in the final image on the LCD. Histograms are not hard to understand or read, despite their apparent complexity to some, but that's another subject.

Last but certainly not least, is blinkies - very useful indeed, though also another topic for a full debate. Bear in mind that all these things - LCD image, histogram and blinkies, are all generated off the JPEG and are subject to all in-camera controls and adjustments. Which is another thing a separate meter knows nothing about.

I'm not dissing the methods outlined by Lee for shooting film, and cameras like 5x4in are still popular with landscapers for good reason. But really not the best or easiest way with digital.