Recently I've been reading a couple of books both enjoyable.
The obvious one everyone mentions 'understanding exposure' and Michael Freemans 'Perfect Exposure'.
Before I get too confused I thought I'd ask a couple of questions.
They seem to use different methods, Peterson meters off the area he deems most critical and recomposes then ignores his meter reading depending on the result he wants and where the sun is.
Freeman talks about weighing up the average light/grey and using exposure compensation to bring out the tones he wants.
Is this two different methods to achieve the same results, which one do people here most use.
Forgive me if I have interpreted this wrong, I thought it best to ask before making assumptions to lead me in the wrong direction
The obvious one everyone mentions 'understanding exposure' and Michael Freemans 'Perfect Exposure'.
Before I get too confused I thought I'd ask a couple of questions.
They seem to use different methods, Peterson meters off the area he deems most critical and recomposes then ignores his meter reading depending on the result he wants and where the sun is.
Freeman talks about weighing up the average light/grey and using exposure compensation to bring out the tones he wants.
Is this two different methods to achieve the same results, which one do people here most use.
Forgive me if I have interpreted this wrong, I thought it best to ask before making assumptions to lead me in the wrong direction
