[Dabhand16]

Expanding on a topic close to my heart in the 'Metering with Filters' thread, I thought this worthy of it's own thread. I'd be interested in the poinions of others. I lifted this from my last reply in the other thread.

A point was made by Steve that balancing the sky and foreground in terms of exposure results in an un-natural photograph, because the sky is naturally the brightest part of the composition. Hope I've summed that up right, Steve.

With regard to the natural look of the end product, if you want a natural look, you must take this into account. One of my hobbyhorses is that how many pictures do we see where the sky and cloud details have been emphasied to the extent they often dominate the photograph? I think that we are all guilty to some extent of sometimes doing this, and whilst I accept that this detail can put a completely different aspect onto any shot, and I have to say I really enjoy seeing them, and appreciate the skill invoved in producing them, when the balance tips to the sky, and takes the eye from the overall effect, I think it has gone too far. (Unless you are doing it for a specific reason, of course). These pics are not natural, they are almost impressionist.

Discuss.