I've taken exposure for granted all this while. I have the following question which cannot be found in the books. Hope someone can kindly help me answer. Thanks.
We all know a camera decides on the correct exposure based on "middle grey". And that it uses reflective metering as opposed to incident metering which should be the case for spot on exposure for all scenarios.
Now, I'm sure all of us have experienced "hot spots" or "flashing light" on our camera's LCD when we try to take pictures of something white or bright colored in the sun. That means that part of the scene has been overexposed.
Say you are taking a picture of 2 friends. Friend A wears a dark-colored shirt, while friend B wears a white one. After taking a shot, you review your LCD screen and see that Friend B's shirt has flashing highlights to denote over-exposure. But Friend A's shirt is properly exposed.
What do you do from here?
Suppose you only take a picture of Friend A. He looks well-exposed and you can say you've gotten the exposure right. Now let Friend A step out and take only a picture of Friend B. Using the same exposure as that for Friend A, you now find Friend B to be over-exposed.
Normal layman's logic will be that it's expected. White reflects more light while darker colors absorb more light and hence don't radiate as much light as white. But in photography, as I mentioned earlier, it's not the reflected light that determines what the exposure should be (that could work if what we photograph is close to middle grey) but the light that is INCIDENT on the subject.
For my example, both Friends A and B are standing under identical lighting. So why should Friend B's white shirt be overexposed while Friend A's darker shirt is properly exposed?
How do you explain this paradox?