OP
OP
The flickr images posted is I think one of those example where one has two choices (we exclude bracketing as we are discussing exposure and placement not exposure sweeping):
-) Calm and careful metering: Spot measurement on the highlights. Spot measurement on the face. Figuring the final effect. Deciding whether to take the shot. This is my typical scenario with nocturne pictures of lit monuments, actually the light gap is normally much greater. Shot is nice IMO certainly a fill light might have made it more "normal" in any case.
-) Fast measuring: Incident light meter pointed the dome toward the light source (discussed ad nauseam in another thread). This gives certainty the highlight on the hat and bright beard is not burned and should fall "just right" on the upper part of the characteristic curve. The shadow is supposed to fall those possibly four EVs below highlight and should be in the acceptable range, although not where one would normally place the main point of interest of an image. This is my typical scenario in walk-around pictures with slides during central hours of the day. Marble buildings with the sun on their face, and plenty of seceded shadows in windows, porchs, etc. where one would hope to avoid blocking.
I have no idea what the above mentioned authors would do in this case as the three methods outlined would not seem indicated for such a situation (bracketing aside) IMO.
With long scale subjects the authors suggest the duplexed incident metering method to find the best exposure setting compromise.
