Ehh?? I thought I was winning here ?

Good idea ... anyone know the name of the Sony forum ?

But I'd have thought that a quick and accurate way to meter and achieve your desired exposure reliably would be even more important on film?

Sorry ronniemac, I've missed that question earlier. Its not really about me or my sensibilities, more different approaches to a genre of photo - I don't like the extreme HDR 'look' either, and particularly don't like the characteristic 'inverted brightness' effect (where some shadows actually end up being brighter than highlights).

I've had a close-up look at Andrew's last version, compared them side by side in Photoshop and seen the histograms. My honest resposnse is there are pluses in both. I do believe the level of small detail in the HDR is discernable to the eye in reality, when scanning around. On a technical level I like the tone curve of the HDR, with a slightly higher whitepoint and perfect bell shape falling to the slightest black clip.

But, I accept the earlier point of MrB about the blues, which are better in Andrews. Also his version adds extra depth through more shadow clipping, which given the particular space is probably realistic - you'd have to stare deep into those deepest shadows to make out detail. But I'm not so convinced by the smoothness of the stonework in this blended version.

I would probably add some extra black clip to the HDR to match that of Andrew's, that would be an improvement.

But, if I stop here to a make a choice between the two here on the table, not allowing any further improvements, then on balance I'd say that Andrew's is the more natural overall.

A great story Steve, and a great set of Puffin Pics. I like them all, the expressions and colours are excellent!

Its definately not my invention John. The author Michael Freeman outlines it in his book 'Perfect Exposure', but I've seen reference to it as well in other respected guides. It really is adapted from the true digital scale, RGB values 0-255, as for most a 0-100 scale is easier to reckon with quickly.

I do think it could be helpful even in quickly changing light, as once you've established the relationship between your metered point and your intended tonal value, then its a quick re-adjustment up or down the scale as the light changes - here a instant visual judgement could work without any need to re-meter. So I think it is versatile enough in practice to cover many shooting situations.

I think the theme is best conveyed by 4 & 5. They may not be the best technically though - it depends what else the judges will place most value on?

Thanks Adrian, I didn't mean to go off-topic, or detract from your images ... quite the opposite, I see exposure technique and its practical application as fairly central to the topic, the critical element of you photos here. In fact I see it as very much on-topic - it may be that some things were misunderstood.

Basically, I see the process in two parts - using the meter to establish the mid tone, and then relating camera stops to a percentage scale across the dynamic range. The idea of dividing the DR into zones is not new, Jon already mentioned Ansel Adams, but thats really for mono I think.

The most logical scale to use is a percentage one, divided into 10 steps - this covers a stop or so on most cameras. Some will have room to spare either end, which will be a bonus for the editing stage.

So, say it is practical to meter a midtone (like your grey concrete towers on the crane shot) - a true midtone is 50% on this scale (I know we think of 18% grey, but that is a light reflectance value, different to a metered midtone which is a brightness value that that we mentally place in the middle of the camera range).

So we place this midtone at 50% - whaever reading the camera gives us translates to 50% .... now we just consider how brighter or darker from a mid tone do we want this particular area (the concrete towers) to be for our creative purpose. In your photo here it is darker than a midtone, maybe 20% below. Now, if you already know that your camera DR covers 10 stops (with a bit extra at either end), then this translates to a 2 stop (1 stop is 10% on the scale) reduction in exposure - so -2 compensation, or 2 stops faster shutter speed.

It works for different metering if needed as well - say you didn't have a midtone, or (like some of your shots here a midtone reading would give you an exposure that started out way too bright for your intentions), then you have the option of metering a highlight. If you do this (say a spot reading on the bright clouds) you are making this highlight into a midtone - the initial exposure you get will be darker than if you metered a grey object.

So now you're asking where do you want the highlight to be in relation to a midtone - in this case you wanted it to be a bit brighter - not the highest brightness, but maybe 20% above a midtone. So in this case you'd be setting +2 stops compensation, or 2 stops slower speed. It all depends on your best metering options, remembering that whatever you meter will become your midtone, your '50%'.

I won't bank on it The clique's out to supper.

I would certainly enjoy such dedicated threads on technique, and no doubt would very activity get involved. But are you suggesting even more 'rules' or limitations on what should be 'allowed' in peoples photos threads. The matter of creative exposure is surely the one key distinction on these particular images right here ... how is discussing such techniques , alternatives and sharing info causing 'clutter'?

Most of us would be delighted that our images had provoked extended discussions, debate and general all-round interest. If there's something to be learned and gained by all then thats even better. Or have I completely misunderstood the point of all the recent bemoaning of lack of replies, poor interest and apathy to members photo topics?

DrO, if you're not interested in further exposure / metering discussion then I won't continue out of personal respect ... I would say though that I am rarely extended any such courtesy myself, and have to take what comes.

This is just an over-reaction, or is it another ugly case of self-appointed forum police deciding who is eligible to make points in relation to others? If anything will stifle this forum it is that sort of thing.

Nothing I have been saying in any way preaches to anyone, least of all Adrian. In fact his shots with their creative, non-conventional exposures, are the springboard for my thoughts on it. We've all got different approaches to things, and it has been wonderful to hear the photographer speak about that here, and he seems very open to ideas and furthering the discussions .... but why such a reluctance from others to discuss ways of assessing a scenes brightness, relationships between tonal areas and quick ways to translate this into camera stops? Its all about sharing isn't it, both inspiration and ideas.

What any of this has got to do with Gareth using centre-weighted, Steve dialing in -EV, or Smeggy's listing of some rather conventional metering and flash compensation settings, I have no idea ! What I'm talking about is quick 'ready-reckoner' approaches to creative exposure options. Its here because of DrO's brilliant examples. Wouldn't anyone want to at least consider ways to achieve similar results? Or am I right in getting the feeling that some don't really want to talk about photography and its technique?