Upload & Sell: On
Cougaris ... well, that's a pretty good grasp.
BTW ... Welcome to FM and the PC Forum.
Nothing to fool the meter, none was used, no EC utilized ... just a straight same manual setting used for both images.
Exposure was set by "Sunny 16", which suggests that an exposure of ISO 160 would warrant an exposure of f/16 @ 1/160 shutter speed. For this time of day (5:06 PM), I mentally associated that the exposure would be reduced by 1 stop from EV 15 (Sunny 16) to EV 14. Sunset typically provides around EV 12 illumination and pre-sunset is from EV 14 - EV 12. With about 90 minutes til sunset @ 6:44, I went with only a 1 EV reduction for my exposure of the left side image, based on lighting conditions (clear sky all directions) without using any metering device in or out of the camera.
Thus, a "Sunny 11" would be f/11 @ 1/160, which I chose a combination @ 1/7.1 @ 1/500 (which is 1/3 stop less than EV 14).
The test shot was initially to assess my utilization of the Sunny 16 and EV system for exposure without relying on a meter which can be fooled by various things ... i.e. very old school, kinda like how Adams is reported to have determined exposure for Moonrise Over Hernandez without any metering devices.
Extending from that though, I realized I had a good opportunity to shoot from "the other side" of the subject to compare the lighting variance between E-W orientation. So, I turned the cards 180 degrees to face east and reshot them with the exact same exposure.
My goals for the comparison were to assess how much luminance and hue variation there is coming from different portions of the sky when receiving light from the direct warm portion of the sky vs. the indirect cool portion of the sky. These are the results side by side.
Of course, had this comparison be done at noon, the diff's would be negligible as each direction would have equal amounts of warm direct (overhead) vs. cool indirect contributions to the image from either direction. However, as the hour gets later (or earlier), our orientation to different portions of the sky continue to matter more significantly regarding our source of illumination.
At this time of day, with only a 1 EV exposure variance, we typically don't associate a color shift to the "golden hour" nearly as much as we do when we get into that last hour before sunset. Most folks know that shadows are cooler than their full lit counterparts, but I just wanted to see how much difference orientation to the sky made with the light falling on our subject.
Seeing the recent number of waterfall shots and my mention that a watch (time of day) and compass (orientation) are valuable, combined with my seemingly incessant indication of blue cast, I wanted to see how much diff there was. I shot these two images about a month ago, but had not yet taken the time to look at them side by side. The waterfall shots prompted me to do so ... the results just being shared.
Even with my indication of the diff @ warm direct vs. cool indirect for some time, the results were a little surprising to me at how stark the diff is.
Anyway, these are 180 degrees apart and while the cards are the exact same white, gray, black in each ... they don't present the same even though shot with the same exposure. No real surprise there, but in a backlit scenario, such as the shot on the right, it would be very easy for the meter to get fooled (and we learn to use EC or fill light), but with our waterfalls we really don't have the ability to fill them if they are backlit.
The two issues that I see are the exposure variance and the WB variance. I'd venture to say that most folks shoot waterfalls (and other outdoor subjects) in daylight WB when they have an open sky. But depending on the time of day and orientation to that open sky, daylight balance may not be the color or light that our subjects are actually receiving, thereby imparting those casts to a degree/fraction of that which has been imported on our white card in the right hand side.
If we look at the background sky of each image, and realize that the background sky of one image is the source of illumination for the other image (recalling that each were shot with the identical camera settings), we can see just how much difference there is in our light source of the sky depending on orientation to which portion of the sky we are receiving our light from onto our subject @ AI=AR.
The next step for me is to see how much correction needs to be applied to bring our subject on the right to have similar exposure and color as our subject on the left.
Anyway ... long and boring, but hopefully informative (or thought provoking) for comparison and a nugget of usefulness that I could finally put an illustration to what I've been speaking to. Dare I say, this is an example where picture IS worth a thousand words ... well 891 anyway.