What Do You Think of My Photographs?

Most of the tutorials here have been technical in nature, discussing things like exposure, “F-stops,” histograms, and the like. They are geared toward the budding enthusiast who wants to take their photography to the proverbial “next level.”

“Do you want me to say nice things about your photographs, or do you want an honest critique?”

Fairly often, I am asked by friends and family to look at an image, or a group of images and “tell me what you think.” Before I go further, I want to refer to my own experience as a brand new enthusiast. My motivator was a “beloved” college professor who, 35 years ago, put a very blunt question to me: “do you want me to say nice things about your photographs, or do you want an honest critique?” It was a critical point in my own photographic journey – perhaps the critical juncture.

If you want to truly move to “higher levels” (it is a continuum, and I am not going to try to define levels), you have to be willing to put in time, practice, homework and significant effort. Often, enthusiastic shutterbugs, though they begin enthusiastically, are not ultimately willing (or perhaps ready). I mean this as simply as observation and certainly not as criticism. We all have limited time and means and thus our own priorities and interests.

I don’t not mean to arrogant. We all have our own gifts. Taking that gift “to the next level” no matter what the endeavor, will always involve some “perspiration.” Sometimes we do it. Other times, we simply marvel at the gifts God gave us and enjoy them for what they are. In my case, I have made a near-lifelong study of all things photographic. I have at least 3 linear feet of bookcase holding photographic “how-to” and inspirational books. I have had the good fortune of having my work critiqued by a number of very talented photographers and artists (several of them accomplished professionals).  Those critiques have usually been honest (at times, brutally so).  I have also had a minor amount of “formal” photographic education.  I hope I have learned from those experiences, and improved at a photographer, maybe even to the “next level.”  My hope, in all of the tutorials, is that I can pass some of that knowledge and experience on in a useful way. And, in one or two cases, a little bit of my own enthusiasm may have rubbed off on a couple of other “enthusiasts” who have (in my view) taken it to higher levels. I am not solely to blame, but hopefully one motivating factor.

We all have our own gifts. Taking that gift “to the next level” no matter what the endeavor, will always involve some “perspiration.”

And, there is certainly irony. Many shutterbugs take many, many more images than I (or my enthusiast colleagues) do, and nearly always have a camera in hand. I am often in awe (and maybe a little envy?) of others’ vision – images with things in them I never saw (maybe because I get bogged down it the “right ways” of photography) – and of their sense of right time/right place in their photography.

It is often difficult to see issues in your own images.

Having said the above, there are things that any avid shooter can use. It is often difficult to see issues in your own images. Maybe this is because we were there and we are imagining what we saw and that is “filtering” how we look at an image. But the camera lens is a brutally honest observer. So often, it makes some sense to have others look at your images and make comments. It is not that you are necessarily going to “fix” images already taken, but maybe by looking at some of them, with the following in mind, you will think about those items the next time you snap in image. So here are some basic comments on how to improve images.

Watch the Horizon

One of the most common “faults” in a photograph, often seen in those vacation photos of the beach, or skiing, or the mountains, where there is some scenic vista in the background (or perhaps it is the subject of the photo) is a tilting horizon. It is usually very obvious to the third party observer, especially if they were not standing in the place you took the image. There will be times when it is tricky, because you may have multiple “lines” in an image (a hillside or a building in the foreground, for example). Our eyes “want” horizontal lines to be level and perpendicular lines to be straight up and down. But the horizon is how we anchor ourselves to the earth and so, 99% of the time, it should be the leveling point in a photograph. (After 35 years of shooting, I recently had a friend and very talented shooter in his own right, point this issue out to me in one my own images. I obviously don’t see the world in a balanced way – just ask my friends and family. . His suggested solution: use a bubble level. It is a good tool, but not one I expect most enthusiasts to use).

Look out for “Merges”

What the heck is a merge? A merge is one of those times in a photograph when you see a post, a sign, a tree or branch (or even a hand or a leg) “growing out of the top of someone’s head.” Photography (so far) is two dimensional. We use lenses, perspective, etc., to give the impression of 3-D, but it is truly only 2 dimensional at this point. Normal human vision, on the other hand, is 3-dimensional. So our eye (and brain) tells us that there is “space” between the subject’s head and the sign post. Most photographic lenses, especially up close, will compress that space and the resulting image is a “merge.” The solution is to move sideways one way or another enough to move the offending object to one side.

Get Closer!

This is sometimes easier said than done. But in well over 1/2 the images I view, one of my first thoughts is that this would be a stronger image if the shooter composed more tightly. This is especially true with photographs of people, pets and animals. The viewer wants to connect with the subject. They want to see their face in an “in-your-face” way. Obviously, there will be times when that is just not possible. But in most cases, the photographers I am addressing here are shooting friends and family. The relationship and circumstances should be such that you can get closer. The same is true with pets, generally. For any of these subjects, the point of focus is almost always one place – the eyes. So use the subject’s eyes as a focal point and try to be sure that they are always in sharp focus.

Avoid the “Bullseye” Effect

After crooked horizons, this may be my most often observed comment in photographs. It is a natural tendency for the photographer. If you think about it, the camera is an extension of our eye, which is connected to a very sophisticated apparatus—the human brain. But like the scarecrow, the camera doesn’t have a brain. The brain does something the camera—and thus, the resulting image—cannot do. It sees context and puts its interpretation of that image within that context. The human eye can focus on its subject and still “see” the surroundings. But the lens is literal. What it can physically capture within its view is what you get.

And, camera manufacturers don’t necessarily help us in that area. Most cameras today have focusing brackets, and most of them are dead-center (bullseye) in the middle of the lens.

But photos with the subject dead center are usually boring and static. Having the subject off-center usually makes the photo more dynamic. An often invoked “rule” of composition is “the rule of thirds.” There are some very well thought out artistic underpinnings for this “rule.” We won’t go there. There are, of course, exceptions. Portraits are perhaps the main one. But there also may be times when you just need to “get the shot” or when it just looks right.

Many newer cameras have the option to turn on lines which divide the frame in thirds, both horizontally and vertically. Take advantage of that feature and start thinking about placing the subject at the different intersections of those lines.

Placement of the Horizon

This is a continuation of the thought process from above. Just as placing the subject, bullseye in the center in the frame is generally to be avoided, you should also avoid placing the horizon dead-center horizontally in the image frame. Again, placing it in the top third or bottom third will usually make a more dynamic image. If you have a really dynamic sky (puffy white clouds, pink or orange sunset, angry black storm clouds) you may want the horizon in the bottom third of the image to emphasize the sky. If you have a blah sky (greys are almost universally awful, as is white, overcast, and many times, completely clear blue), then you want to exclude as much as possible. Conversely, if there is some really dynamic object in the foreground that you want to emphasize, you may want to place the horizon in the top third.

There are probably more times when you will break this rule than any of the others. Sometimes, the correct placement of the subject takes precedence over placement of the horizon. But if you can place it differently and can think about it, it will often make a stronger image. Another time this rule will be broken is with a mirror-image reflection shot.

Think about What to Exclude

We usually know what to include. It’s the reason for taking the photo in the first place. But sometimes what we exclude makes a stronger image. The human mind is powerful. It has an incredible memory bank of images and it can supply context. You don’t have to “write a book,” sometimes just a page or a chapter will do. I recall “critiquing” a sports image by a (very talented, semi-pro) friend of mine a couple years back. It was a high school basketball game and the shot was of two opposing players fighting for a rebound. The shot was from back a bit and showed the gym, basket, basketball and stands, as well as the player. My comment to him was that I didn’t need all the depicted context. I wanted to see the up-close, intensive facial expressions of the two players. There is enough “context” that is subliminal that 90% of viewers will know it’s a basketball game. We don’t have to tell them. This may be a subset of the “get closer” comment.

Another thing to exclude is dull sky. Most of the time, it is grey, white, dull overcast, or hazy skies that fool the human eye. It is a beautiful day at the beach, but in the resulting image, the sky is a blob of grey, or overexposed whitish grey. The solution? Exclude as much of the sky as possible in the image.

In a similar vein, often, large expanses of the same color with no other interest (e.g., green fields, large areas of plain blue or grey sky, a large expanse of water) should be mostly excluded.

Rules are made to be Broken

While there are certainly “rules” in life and in society, there really aren’t any in art

In my older years, I have begun to correct myself whenever I want to discuss a “rule.” I prefer the term “guideline” these days. While there are certainly “rules” in life and in society, there really aren’t any in art (and photography is certainly a form of art, in my view). So lets call them guidelines. The guidelines are generally there for a reason. They generally make a stronger image. But there are times when we want to break the rules on purpose. Don’t be afraid to experiment with other perspectives.

The Perfect Histogram

"High Key" Exposure of Auke Bay, Alaska

I know.  Its been done.  Beaten to death, in fact.  But remember my “mission” for my tutorials.  I have some friends who have asked me to try to translate this stuff into plain English.  My tutorials will never be a substitue for the in-depth, detailed and knowledgeable work already out there.  And, maybe I will even add a point of view or insights that some writers have missed or even in some instances, mislead about the usefulness of the histogram tool.

Now that I have you reading at least this far, I’ll admit, there is no such thing.  I read many comments and texts extolling the virtues of the histogram tool on the DSLR camera back; as well as the “blinkies” (blinking white highlights indicator).  Often, the commentator warns that if there are “any” blinkies, you must dial exposure back until they disappear, and if there is any part of the histogram which spikes and pushes up against either end of the graph, dial exposure up or down until the histogram stays tamely between the goalposts.

To which I say, not so fast!  The histogram and the blinking highlights indicator are tools.  As such there is no “do-all tool.”  Nor is there a set of hard and fast rules which govern the absolute use of the tools.

So What Does a Histogram Do For Me?

It might surprise some digital photographers that the word histogram is not some new digital photography concept.  A histogram is a frequency distribution chart.  The histogram we use on the back of modern DSLR cameras and in software programs like PhotoShop, is a graphical depiction of the distribution of pixels from black to white, with pure blacks represented at the far left side of the graph and pure whites at the far right.  This might lead one to conclude that the “perfect histogram” would always be represented by a symmetrical shaped, such as the histogram shown here.

But in many cases, they would be wrong.

The histogram measures the relative number of pixels at each level of brightness.  So it stands to reason that a properly exposed image that has lots of bright tones in it (for example a snow scene, a water scene with lots of specular highlights, or a “high key” fashion image) will naturally display more of the histogram shape to the right.  Likewise, a night shot, or shot with a lot of dark tones would shift the bulk of the histogram to the left.  A neutral toned image should come closer to the bell curve.  The Histogram for the photo of Auke Bay looks very different, and it should, as the vast majority of pixels are very light tones:

Histogram of Auke Bay Image above

Until recently, the histogram on the back of most cameras only showed us its measurement of the B&W pixels in an image.  That was/is o.k.  In exposure, what we are trying to measure is the relative brightness in an image (or its luminance).  Newer cameras have overlays of red, green and blue.  For our purposes here, we will ignore them (though you should know that the same principles apply, so that if any of them “spike” at either extreme, the histogram is suggesting that the pixels in that color have been “clipped”).

I use the word “suggest” for a reason.

The histogram and the blinking highlights indicator are imprecise measuring tools.  There are at least two important reasons for that.

First, there area times when the image should have portions that these tools will indicate are overexposed.  For example, there are, at times, images that have specular highlights an/or very bright whites that should be pure white.  In this case, the properly exposed image may actually have some small amount of “clipping” (blinking highlights and a very narrow spike at the right extreme of the graph).

In my earlier tutorial, “Getting Exposure Right” I said that photographer should not be fooled into thinking that the light meter in a camera can “think” for her.  The histogram is similar in that regard.  While it differs in that it can measure the overall image exposure before, during and after the fact, it is the same principle.  The photographer must know the overall characteristics of the image and exposure he seeks.  Only by accomplishing that, can the value of the histogram (and the “blinkies”) be appreciated as the very powerful tool that it is.

The second reason applies to raw images (and I hope you are shooting raw images).  The histogram on current DSLR cameras is created, on-the-fly, by the same in-camera software that renders a jpeg image (if you shoot jpeg).  As I opined in “Why You Should Shoot Raw” it doesn’t make sense to go to the expense of a multi-thousand dollar camera, an expensive computer and sophisticated rendering software such as Photoshop, and then let rather unsophisticated in-camera software render your images (“cook” them) in such a way that you have very little ability to “develop” them yourself.  But that is just what the in-camera jpg algorithm does.

It is the in-camera created jpg that the histogram (and the blinking highlights indicator) is measuring; not the raw image.

And, notably, this jpeg-based histogram is not the same histogram you get in Photoshop, ACR, Lightroom, or any other post processing software’s adjustments menu!  So it is very important to understand that your particular histogram my not completely accurately measure what your sensor is able to capture in a raw image.  Like the exposure meter, it is worth doing some testing in a controlled lighting and image environment, taking note of it and making the appropriate adjustment or interpretation in the field.

Your Mileage May Vary.

I have found that on some cameras (true of my D200 –seemingly less so of my D700, which is perhaps a function of the camera companies just getting better and better at interpreting, measuring and presenting what the end result will be), I can push the image beyond the blinkies and spike and still get a very acceptable “default” histogram when I open it in ACR. As we like to say on forums, YMMV.

So What Am I supposed To Do With The Histogram?

Within these limitations it is important to understand the guidelines.  The left and right extremes represent the limits between which the histogram should normally reside.  If spikes upward at either end (left or right sides), the histogram is suggesting that the respective black or white points are being clipped.  Another way of saying this is that the spike and beyond represents areas in the photo in which all detail has been lost in the dark areas, and/or all detail has been lost in the whites (“blocked up shadows” or “blown highlights”).  Importantly, these are guidelines; not rules to be slavishly adhered to.

Histogram of "Underexposed" Image

Histogram of "Overexposed" Image

Now that we know the limitations of the tool and how it works, we can use the histogram to make arguably better judgments about exposure.  But remember, they are just that; judgments.  Once you understand how the tool works and what the information it gives us means, it just makes sense that the histogram for a shot with mostly darker tones would show substantially more information to the left of the histogram:

Split Rock Histogram

Split Rock Lighthouse

 

 

 

 

 

Prior to the advent of this tool most of us only had the light meter and our knowledge of it and of exposure techniques as tools to be used prior to making the exposure.  While in most cases, accomplished photographers knew how to meter and judge correctly and rarely worried about the end result.  In cases where tricky lighting or other conditions prevailed, photographers often either bracketed a series of images to cover any overlap from measurement to reality, or in some cases, took Polaroid shots that could be “instantly” developed and analyzed.  And in the end, you still didn’t really know until you got the developed images back from the processor.

In my view, the time and effort required to get to that point was clearly greater than it is with the modern DSLR and the histogram.  Today (especially when capturing raw images), we can let the camera’s automatic metering make the exposure and check the histogram, adjust and then take another exposure.  And newer cameras with so-called “live view” lcd panels can actually display a “real-time” histogram, which can be used as an additional measuring tool.

I am not suggesting that the histogram be a substitute for knowing how to properly expose, and pre-thinking your shots.

You still need to understand the principles of good exposure before you can use any tool to make well-exposed images, in my view.  And, my “shoot first and ask questions (well, check the histogram) later” approach will not work if you are shooting action or in rapidly changing light conditions (although in an action scenario, such as sports, or in a situation where you are anticipating future action, you can take a test exposure and get the adjusting done before the action starts in many cases).  But for my routine landscape imagery, it is a method that works just fine.  Except in rare or unusual cases, I rarely use the spot metering function on my camera, and never have used (in my recent memory) the weighted average function.  I set it to the “matrix” (honeycomb pattern) meter, take the exposure, and check the histogram.  For good measure I also check the blinking highlights indicator, just to get more information.  In certain lighting situations, I know my particular camera may meter at a certain exposure solution, but I need to adjust the exposure compensation by 1/3 or 2/3 stop.

Raw Shooters: Expose To The Right

One last point; relevant if you shoot raw images, but not so much if you shoot jpeg.  See my previous tutorial, “Expose Right To Expose Correctly,” for an explanation about why it is important to favor, or bias the right side of the histogram in exposing raw images.  In short, the vast majority of information is captured in the highest EV of capture (twice the amount of the entire rest of the perhaps 5 EV range).  Thus, the sensor can capture more important information in the highlights.  It is important not to leave any gaps on the right side of the histogram, and if the photographer must choose or make judgments, the right side should be favored.

For a really in-depth, illustrated tutorial on Histograms, see The Luminous Landscape here.

Expose Right To Expose Correctly

This is the second installment of my tutorial on using metering tools to obtain correct exposure.  After all that detail, the tutorial on how to obtain correct exposure using a light meter, can now–to some extent–be thrown out the window, thanks to the tools given us by most digital cameras!  I want to start out by saying that, like all of my tutorials here, I did not invent the wheel.  This is (hopefully) an understandable distillation of what a number of much more knowledgeable gurus have taught me through their writings and seminars.

Photoshop (and similar software) users are already familiar with the histogram, which depicts, in a graphical way, the number of pixels in an image ranging from pure black to pure white.  And, we know that if there are spikes at either end of the graph, we have problems with under, or over-exposure (known in digital terminology as “clipping”).  The left example shows pixels “stacked” on the left and indicates lost detail in the shadows (underexposure).  The right example, conversely, shows pixels stacked on the right and loss of detail in the highlights.  The middle example is close to an ideal histogram and is neutral.  There are no lost details.  The LCD readout on the back of the camera measures the same phenomena.

Using The LCD on the Back of The Camera

Today’s digital cameras give us this tool, built into the camera and we are foolish if we don’t take full advantage of it!  Digital capture gives us something we never had before–immediate feed back about our exposure.  We can now take the shot and look at the LCD on the camera back to see the result.  But be careful!  It is easy to be fooled by this great tool, if you do not understand how to set it up and use it.

  The actual image you see on the back of the camera, for example, is rarely useful as a tool to determine exposure.

 It can perhaps tell you something about composition and maybe about sharpness.  But it is not a good measure of exposure.  The image on the LCD screen is a jpg which is interpreted by the camera’s internal software and displayed on a screen that is not likely calibrated like your computer screen.  So any judgment you make about exposure and rely on is likely to be disappointing.

The tool you need to understand is the histogram to see whether your exposure is technically correct.  This is a wonderful, and time-saving tool, because it is a pretty accurate measure, immediately after-the-fact, of your exposure.  However, caveats apply.  First, notice that I say “technically” correct.  Recall from my tutorial on Using The Light Meter, that it is up to you, as the photographer, to determine the aesthetically correct exposure.  This remains true even when using the DSLR and the histogram (though the aesthetics can be more easily done as a matter of post processing now).  Second, the histogram is based on the camera’s interpretation of a jpeg image and only the “luminousity” channel (measuring mainly the black and whites in the image).  It is possible that one of the RGB channels might be overexposed (blown out) and you will not know it. This is probably a minor concern that in practice isn’t a serious issue.  And, some of the newer bodies now have an RGB histogram display.  Last, but certainly not least,

There is a danger in becoming so “married” to the histogram that we begin to shoot mechanically and technically

missing a crucial moment or artistic approach (this is why I still believe sound exposure knowledge covered in previous tutorials on exposure are necessary as an internalized fundamental understanding.  Indeed, this penchant we have developed to shoot, then check the LCD on the back of the camera has been given the name, “chimping,” for its similarity to a chimpanzee looking up and down.

In order to take full advantage of the features offered by your camera, you will need to go into the camera’s menu system and make sure the histogram feature is enabled.  While you are in there, you should also enable the camera’s feature (most DSLRs) that shows a flashing display on the LCD image for “blown highlights” (more below).

Reading the Histogram

I think the world of Michael Reichman’s contribution to digital knowledge and his Luminous Landscape is a must-bookmark site for any serious DSLR  user.  His article on understanding histograms is clear and concise and I recommend reading it.   Reading your histogram is essentially similar to the Photoshop Levels histogram discussed above.  As a general rule, you want the histogram to show an even dispersion of pixels between the far left and right of the graph.  If the graph is “stacked” against either side, it is an indication of an exposure problem.  Stacked against the left side means you are likely underexposed.  Stacked against the right means you are likely overexposed.  As a general rule, particularly if you are shooting jpg images, having the histogram centered is going to give you a good exposure (if you are shooting RAW, however, there is a better way–more below).  It is worth mentioning here again, that the LCD image on the back of the camera may even look pretty good. Do not believe it.  Believe the histogram!  It is also worth noting that the shape of the histogram is not really important.  My “neutral” histogram is the theoretical shape of an “ideal” histogram with an even dispersion of tones.  Many (if not most) images will not have that characteristic.  If your image has a lot of shadow or darker content, the histogram will show more pixels to the left and they will likely reach higher up on the graph (perhaps making it look more steep and spikey).  If there is a lot of bright areas in the photo (highlights of water, clouds, and bright skies are a good example), it will likely show more steepness to the right. The critical determination is whether it stacks flat against the right or left.  If that happens, you are clipping important digital data and not getting the most from your exposure.

The beauty of the histogram is that it allows us to make that measurement immediately after the shot and adjust exposure until we get it correct.  Obviously, there are instances when that is not going to work.  Action photos may only give us one chance.  If you can anticipate action, however, the histogram allows us to take some “pre” test shots and be ready when the action happens.

Professional nature photographer John Shaw has been an inspiration to me for 25 years.  I have most of his books.  In the film days, John (as did Bryan Peterson — mentioned in my earlier tutorial in his Understanding Exposure–and many other professional photographer-writers) spent a fair amount of time and text addressing proper exposure techniques.  Last winter, I had the pleasure of attending one of John’s weekend seminars.  I was taken aback by something he said (and a little abashed that such a simple concept had escaped me until I heard him say it).  After acknowledging how much careful time and study he had put into proper exposure and metering techniques (using spot-metering and never trusting the camera’s automatic features) in the old days, he unashamedly acknowledged that he pays no attention to it these days!  He takes a shot at the camera’s suggested exposure using the matrix meter–as a test shot– and then uses the histogram to adjust for proper exposure.  Wow!  How simple is that?

 In two full days of sessions, that was the most important and useful piece of information I brought home with me

There are caveats, again, however.  First, I shoot in the camera’s RAW format 99.99% of the time.  This is a technique that really works best when you are using the most digital information the camera can capture.  To me, this means shooting in the camera’s native 12 bit RAW format, and making post-processing conversions in a RAW converter.  While using the histogram will work in any format, it shines brightest when shooting RAW.  Second, when shooting RAW, the “rules” of reading the histogram change, as we will see next.

Expose To The Right in RAW

What follows only applies if you shoot in the camera’s native RAW format.  Jpg shooters (which, unfortunately, includes most Point & Shoot users), disregard this information, center your histogram as much as possible and take a break.

The idea here, contrary to the thought that you want to “center” your histogram, is that you will get the maximum potential from the capture image data if you expose so that your histogram is as far right as possible, without blowing out any highlights.  This means that for the most part, that we want to shift that centered histogram to the right as far as we can.  Keep in mind that the advantage to this technique will only be realized in the adjustments you make in the image RAW converter prior to opening the image in Photo Shop or other Post Processing software.

Some Theory

I t has been suggested that digital sensors are capable of capturing up to 6 “stops” of range.  For the most part, in my experience, 5 stops is more realistic (besides, most other commentators use 5 stops to demonstrate, and the math is a little easier to grasp).  It is worth mentioning here that the “Levels” histogram in Photoshop uses 0-255 for its measurement from pure black to pure white.  This is based on an 8-bit jpeg model.  Most of the images I work on in Photoshop are 12 bit (everything should double and it should be 16 bit, which is–again–what Photoshop says it is, but current DSLR cameras are only able to capture a maximum of 12 bits, so we work with 12 bits in a 16 bit space). I know, too technical for me too!  Not to beat it to death, however, but consider how much more range of pixels we have to work with (and hence, margin for error) in a 12 bit image which gives us a 0-2048 pixel range instead of 0-255.

Now, here is why to expose to the right.  Consider the graphical 5-stop diagram below.  Note that as we progress from 128 to 2048, the area under consideration continues to double.  What this means in very simple terms is that the last step contains 50% of all the pixels captured!  Note that that is also the highlight.  So we want to capture as much of that as possible.  We accomplish that by shifting our histogram as far right as we can without blowing any highlights.  Another way to say this is that if you do not fill the right side of the histogram you are effectively potentially wasting up to 50% of the available information that your camera is capable of capturing.

There are two excellent tools on the camera-back LCD to determine this.  The first is the histogram we have been discussing.  Check it to make sure you have shifted it as far right at you can without a spike on the right side, or stacking.  The second tool was alluded to above.  If you turned on your camera’s flashing highlight display (affectionately called “blinkies” by many of us), the LCD will show blown highlights as blinking, or flashing.  From there, simply back off the exposure until we eliminate them, or push it to the right until you get them.

Again, do not be concerned with the look of the image on the LCD display.  And, when you open the RAW file in the RAW converter, do not be surprised to see your image look light and overexposed. Just use the image adjustment tools in the RAW converter to bring your image to the look you desire. And, trust me, your images will look better.  A couple week after my John Shaw epiphany, I went out and shot, using my newfound approach.  

Set the camera meter to matrix, shoot your test shot and check the histogram.  Adust the exposure until you have it as far right at possible with no blown highlights.  And trust it.

 It will be right.  Other than that, I did nothing different than I always have.  I sent some shots to a fellow photographer in a “what I captured yesterday” kind of email and he responded that my work just keeps getting better.  Nice compliment (deserved or not), but  the point is that I was able to get all I could out of the capture, with the confidence that my base exposure was dead-on.

Some weeks later, I was experimenting with an old Tilt and Shift lens which did not have metering capability on my camera.  I had no real concern about how to properly meter.  I did not have my hand-held meter with me.  No matter.  I took my best guess (based on my fundamental knowledge of light, exposure and metering), took a test shot, and adjusted until I got the histogram I desired.

The histogram measurement tool has freed us to concentrate on the aesthetic aspects of photography.