This exercise is one
that I put off attempting for quite a while because of how complex it is and
due to the fact that I saw little benefit in completing it. I produced a set up
similar to the one described in the text, set the exposure compensation to +0.5,
the point at which the camera's highlight warning began to show. I then took
spot meter readings from the highlight area (represented by the white A3
drawing pad in the centre of the frame) and shadow area (the area inside the
house.) The readings I got were 1/1000 @ f16 for the highlight area and
1/125@f5.6 for the shadows. Using a dynamic range calculator I found through an
internet search.
I arrived at a
difference of 6 stops between the shadow and highlight area - about half the
dynamic range I had been led to believe my camera was capable of through
various tests I had read! A quick examination of the image in Lightroom however
showed that I should have taken a meter reading for the shadows from the area
underneath the children's sand table at the front left of the image. This shows
the inherent flaw in this exercise - it is an attempt to be quite scientific in
analysing dynamic range and yet provides too many variables to give accurate
data. My understanding of dynamic range comes purely from using my camera in
different situations and gaining an idea of how it will behave. At the same
time I need to decide which elements are most important in the frame and
whether my cameras metering will be fooled into under or over exposing - I have
learned that the eyes can often fool you into how light or dark a scene is and
to use the histogram to judge whether a full range of tones will be recorded.
Completing this exercise has done nothing to further my knowledge in this area,
maybe this is because I am already familiar with the way my camera operates. I
doubt whether I would attempt a repeat of this exercise with a new camera - I
would probably experiment with how the it behaves in real situations to
understand its strengths and limitations.
