Yes, I find that helps to get more views and comments.

But, its true that personality does come into it - I mean a persons 'online persona', something about them to latch on to and feed or bounce off. Some of us do tend to follow each other around - call that a clique or not, but its not 'exclusive' - based on past experience and memory of things we've debated about. That adds a lot to the interest of it all and has an effect on who you might respond to more than others.

But do you remember more what you actually saw, or more the photo you took home with you?

There's no reason for there to be any different results - if the creative intent is there you'll get the results either way. I'm only flagging it up as a mental method, an alternative to having to take shots, check histograms and retake. In falling light, or changable light it may be a positive thing to have a very quick 'ready-reckoner' exposure / metering method to hand.

Its food for though - for everyone on here! I imagine most of our cameras would be set to 'Matrix' (or pattern) mode at the factory - there would be many who might choose centre-weighted, if anything for the familiarity it provides with cameras from an earlier era. I'd advise caution though - in many of your shots here Dr O, centre-weighted (without creative experimetation or my zones & percentages ) will lead to even more 'over-exposure') than the matrix mode ... because less of the brighter areas will fall within the meter area - the camera will not 'see' as much of the highlights.

And with such a 'noir' effect we may even risk being unable to apply enough compensation - how many stops do we have? Is it 3 or 5? OK, 5 might be OK, but its a lot of dialling going on. If we adjust the metering approach and target it to our intended tones & zones then we'll be in the ball-park much quicker.

Its not nature - its a stone church interior! There's masses of detail to see, which you would enjoy in person - now you can see it in glorious HDR on the screen in front of you.

It a joke, but it won't get you a creative exposure! Far from it.

I did qualify all of that early on by stating it was not about you or your images specifically - although your pics are great examples of the need to think differently about exposure - both creatively & technically. I mean, clearly a normal matrix exposure will not work here - so its either experimentation on the shoot or developing a metering and exposuer approach that can work quickly to gice you the brightness value where you want it. I'm just kick-starting some thinking on it. Your method of using the camera clearly works as well!

If people want to get involved and think about these things thats great! Or just keep experimenting - I think its worthwhile to have both options in the bag.

The method I'm outlining above is a kind of modern version of the old 'zones' system, which only really works well for mono. It just grades the total DR in a scene from 0-100% (instead of the RGB 0-255 - its easier think of percentages).

So a mid-tone grey becomes 50% and you rate evrything up or down from there. The actual 'stops' between the zones will depend on each camera and its DR - but once you know yours then its a simple matter of assigning a stop value to, say, each 10% brightness zone (I'd guess for most of our cameras thats about 0.5 a stop). Once you mentally assigin an area of brightness to a zone and know how that zone would meter you can just dial in exposure compensation to reproduce it exactly as intended.

Sorry I coldn't bounce back quickly there - its been an offline weekend with a broadband failure. Great thread indeed - these HDR ones do kick off - but I do wish we got many more opinions on it, not just us the 'usual suspects'! Come on people, what do you think?

Its Abdrew's shot, so he has the ultimate choice, but now we're talking about the best technical approach for all to use. My version is apparently the best of the HDR bunch according to the photographer. Well really, no, its the best of them all! That assertion above about it being an 'acid trip effect' just is not true.

Lets think about what we actually want today ... technology has changed and our options are wider. The aim here was to reproduce the scene 'as the eye would see it'. I believe that what some here are in fact wanting is to simply reproduce it 'as the camera would see it' In other words, they have assimilated over years of film shooting how the technololgy of the day was capable of dealing with such a scene, to the extent that it is in fact that limited capability that is seen to be 'natural' ... they want to continue to produce images that mimic the technical limitations of an earlier era!

But now we have a new choice - no more compromise, to reveal the hidden detail and tyextures of our church interior, simulating the HVS's (human visual system) ability to scan and make instant exposure adjustments and remember textures and build up a memory of the total as it goes - we can now see this all displayed on a single image through HDR technique.

What is 'acid' about my version? The blend between window and stone frame is smooth with correct colour bleeing onto the interior, there is that lovely bloom and glow that we see ourselves in churches all the time, and look at the sheen and polish on the soft stonework - and the amazing texture even into the deep shadows. That's not 'acid'! Its just real.

We should embrace these new possibilites and value them, not keep on trying to prove that the imperfections and limitations of a defunct technology somehow represent 'natural, just becasue over the years we have seen so many 'nice' photos produced that way.

Absolutely, thanks DrO, both for the shots and engaging with it. Its all about getting involved both in the photography & the discussion. I say the rest of this here for general interest and discussion - not to detract from Dr O's shots and creative choices - in fact these images are excellent examples of where exposure choices become very important...

Clearly your approach is instinctive, and involves some experimenting on the shoot. These days this can work well for considered shoots when there's time. I do think there's merit in having some consistent technical steps in mind with exposure, the sort of stuff you can learn about and practice in order to repeat reliably time & time again.

Here I think its about establishing where you want your key tones (the dominating brightness) to sit on the scale (like the Zones system), although I think a percentage scale is better - so say the dark grey concrete below the cranes there would be about 30% total brightness - (for comparison the bright part of the clouds would be about 90%). Given that a mid-tone is around 50% on this particular scale, then a mid-tone reading would demand reducing the exposure about 1.5 stops (50% down to 30%).

Spot metering the bright clouds (so making their 90% into a 50%) will automatically pull the shadows way down - the difference here is 40% (90-50) so your grey concrete will end up at 20% - demanding in fact a small exposure increase (10%, perhaps 0.5 stop) to get you to the same place.

The metering choices depend on whats practical and what lenses you have. You can only spot meter if your lens can reach far enough. But using a mental system like this can help if you have only one metering choice - say centre-wighted - pick out a true midtone and decide how far above or below 50% you actually want to reproduce that tone as - then adjust accordingly.

It sounds long-winded, but then so is experimenting as you go - for faster moving situations a practised and tested approach can work. Its about freeing the mind from the creative and letting the technical rein free ...OK OK, I know I'm pushing it now!!

5 is unusual with the flowers coming through the stones there - great composition. Do you think it could take a bit of brightness reduction? Maybe the sky would benefit from toning down, may bring in more colour.

4 is special with the first flash of sun there, and you've given just enough exposure on the foreground to sense the light bouncing back from the stones onto the boat.

Well MrB & and Andrew, I'll stop talking about it now and put my money where my mouth is ... thanks to Andrew for providing a series of 8 DNGs, from a pitch black interior to a completely blown window, they cover a huge DR.

I chose six of them, including the darkest but not the brightest, and carried out a tone compression in Photomatix Pro 4.0, with tweaks to all parameters. It was finished in PS with some minor colour balance adjustments and removing a few blue cast spots from inside the church.








I can't resist showing you a wider crop, as I really like to see the seating as well ...






The Jury's out - thanks Andrew for allowing me to work on the shot, it was very rewarding & enjoyable I'll e-mail the full-size JPEGs for your closer examination.