Lesley, it's ironic that I photographed this at what's usually considered the worst time of day — about 1 p.m. (roughly). It's the orientation relative to the position of the sun that shows the detail: slightly later and it would have been in shadow; earlier and the light would have thrown shorter shadows.
Lesley, true on both counts. However, about a third of this is pretty much pure white, which would actually tend to bias an exposure reading towards underexposure; on the other hand, a blue sky like this is great for getting an accurate exposure reading. The nett effect is that an exposure reading wouldn't be far off what's needed (particularly with evaluative metering), and any slight underexposure is easily recovered during the RAW conversion. Slide film would have been much trickier :^)
You've done it again! All that detail in the white.
ReplyDeleteLesley, it's ironic that I photographed this at what's usually considered the worst time of day — about 1 p.m. (roughly). It's the orientation relative to the position of the sun that shows the detail: slightly later and it would have been in shadow; earlier and the light would have thrown shorter shadows.
ReplyDeleteAh, but "the worst time of day" is a generalisation. And it would have been so easy to have had the white burn out.
ReplyDeleteLesley, true on both counts. However, about a third of this is pretty much pure white, which would actually tend to bias an exposure reading towards underexposure; on the other hand, a blue sky like this is great for getting an accurate exposure reading. The nett effect is that an exposure reading wouldn't be far off what's needed (particularly with evaluative metering), and any slight underexposure is easily recovered during the RAW conversion. Slide film would have been much trickier :^)
ReplyDelete