>>3994303>i took this as with the meter of my camera set on autoexposure...Assuming those spot meter readings are correct...
* The 1/30 area should be labeled "shadows."
* The 1/500 area labeled mid tones has tones just below middle gray. Let's assume you read an area close to middle gray.
* The shadows here are 4ev below middle gray.
* The entire scene is ~7-8ev.
If my spot meter showed 1/30 for those shadows I probably would have exposed at 1/125 or 1/250, depending on my experience with the film.
>since my spotmeter shows midtones and the sky gives me 1/2000...then i should atleast shoot it at 1/4000sec right ?Wrong direction. If you exposed 1/2000 the sky would be middle gray on the negative. For the sky and clouds to be bright like in real life you have to give more exposure.
>>1/2000sec it showed for the highlights...i picked 1/250sec though...so now the sky is fucked up ?Not really. The scan shows some blocked up areas in the clouds, but that could be the scanner. It's a good bet there's still more detail there on the neg. That said: you will run into situations where parts of clouds will blow out. Cloud edges facing the sun cross into specular highlight territory, and there's no holding detail in them.
>>oh shadows showing 1/30sec so let's say it can/should tolerate 2+ stops atleast, If you expose the shadows at 1/30 they will be middle gray. For them to be shadows...darker...on the neg you have to reduce exposure. So -2 to -3ev.
I don't know anything about your scanner, if you scanned the film or a print, if there was post processing...all of which will bias an evaluation. But let's assume this scan is representative of the negative. I would say it needed a stop more exposure. I don't know if I would say +2 because of the clouds reflecting the sun. But I think +1 would help the scene, open the shadows a bit, but the clouds should still be recoverable and not a problem.
