...we seem to have some opposing sides going on here. If that's the case it would seem to raise a question which would be, roughly, what is the amount of exposure adjustment latitude available in a Raw file to allow pulling up the desired detail in both the highlights and shadows, 1, 2, 3 stops or more or less? I've never had a reason to check that out.

In other words is there really "dead on" exposure and is it a necessity to nail it just to avoid having to move a couple of sliders a notch or two in adjusting a Raw file? I get the desire for assurance inherent in treating each exposure individually but is it even possible to pull everything together in post, and I ask that well aware that I may be committing heresay. If not then why bother with post and Raw? Could the guy possibly get away with what i got from what he said he's doing by just getting "close enough" to stay within the Raw latitude of adjustment margins? I know there's some eyes rollin' about right now and I apologize for taking up so much time here.

There's a lot of talk about starting off with a "dumbed down" or unadjusted Raw file that MUST be adjusted in post but then some are saying that exposure must be "right in the camera" in order to have the desired detail in the final adjusted image. That sounds like a contradiction to this old uneducated farm boy from Arkansas. I'm convinced it's just a matter of me not understanding the finer points and I'm sure somebody will bail me out here on this and I'd like to thank 'em in advance.

...and Bipod, please don't pull your hair out. I'll eventually shut up and go away.

If sensors had infinite dynamic range, then one would never need to set exposure
at all in the camera -- just fix it in post procssing.

But sensors do not have unlimited dynamic range. And the number of stops that
can be encountered in nature is unlimited. Imagine yourself trying to photograph
sunspots. Or the sun rising over a train tunnel. Or just bright snow and shadows on a
sunny winter's day. And once detail has been lost from a blown highlight, there
is no getting it back. (Shadows that look pure black to the naked eye aren't and detail
can be recovered in processing, but not blown highlights.....
I find this extremely depressing.

If sensors had infinite dynamic range, then one would never need to set exposure
at all in the camera -- just fix it in post procssing.

But sensors do not have unlimited dynamic range. And the number of stops that
can be encountered in nature is unlimited. Imagine yourself trying to photograph
sunspots. Or the sun rising over a train tunnel. Or just bright snow and shadows on a
sunny winter's day. And once detail has been lost from a blown highlight, there
is no getting it back. (Shadows that look pure black to the naked eye aren't and detail
can be recovered in processing, but not blown highlights..)

In a very contrasty situation, you are going to lose detail in either the shadows, highlights,
or a bit of both. If you leave it up thte camea, you'll get the latter. But that doesn't
necessary look the best.

Shadows that appear pure black sometimess aren't, and the detail can
be restored in processing. But blown highlights are gone forever.

Dialing in 1.5 stops of additional exposure (over what the meter calculates) is
asking for blown highlights. But of course, it depends on what and where one
phtographs.

What's a "seasoned pro" -- some guy who takes passport photos? Or school pictures?

The statement "+1.5 exposure comp because that's where white sits on the spectrum"
makes no sense at all. White isn't in the spectrum--it's a mixture of spectral colors
(according to some guy named Isaac Newton--but then, he wasn't a "seasoned pro").

But there's a another reason not to ignore exposure and then try to fix it in post-processing:
you may not remember how the original scene looked. For example, in a portrait, you
may have forgotten exactly how light or dark the sitter's complexion was. Whatever it
actually was, in a close up autoexposure will give him an olive complexion (middle tone).

That's how autoexposure works: it takes whatever it meters (average, center-weighted, spot,
matrix or whatever), and adjusts the exposure so it's portrayed as middle gray (or some middle tone).
What else can it do? It doesn't know what it's looking at, or what tone anything actually is. It just
see patterns of light, and applies an algorithm.

Lots of people let their camera chose the exposure -- they just leave it in Program Mode.
Most of the time, that sort of works, provided you're not too particular and are willing to try to
patch it up in post processing.

But the reason one hires a photographer is to get a photographer, not just a camera. If that person
waits until post-processing to try to fix exposure, he's taking a big risk. The event or wedding is
over, no opportunity to try again.

Most camera users today don't make prints and just display images files once or twice on a small,
low-contrast LCD/LED computer monitor. If that's the "final image" then why not leave the camera
in Program Mode, leave it in autofocus, and leave the same zoom lens mounted all the time? No need
for full frame, let along anything larger. And why even bother to keep the lens clean--nobody will
notice a few fingerprints.

I find this extremely depressing.

...we seem to have some opposing sides going on here. If that's the case it would seem to raise a question which would be, roughly, what is the amount of exposure adjustment latitude available in a Raw file to allow pulling up the desired detail in both the highlights and shadows, 1, 2, 3 stops or more or less? I've never had a reason to check that out.

In other words is there really "dead on" exposure and is it a necessity to nail it just to avoid having to move a couple of sliders a notch or two in adjusting a Raw file? I get the desire for assurance inherent in treating each exposure individually but is it even possible to pull everything together in post, and I ask that well aware that I may be committing heresay. If not then why bother with post and Raw? Could the guy possibly get away with what i got from what he said he's doing by just getting "close enough" to stay within the Raw latitude of adjustment margins? I know there's some eyes rollin' about right now and I apologize for taking up so much time here.

There's a lot of talk about starting off with a "dumbed down" or unadjusted Raw file that MUST be adjusted in post but then some are saying that exposure must be "right in the camera" in order to have the desired detail in the final adjusted image. That sounds like a contradiction to this old uneducated farm boy from Arkansas. I'm convinced it's just a matter of me not understanding the finer points and I'm sure somebody will bail me out here on this and I'd like to thank 'em in advance.

...and Bipod, please don't pull your hair out. I'll eventually shut up and go away.

If he's a "seasoned pro," seems unlikely he's not getting the results he wants (doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result? )

On the other hand, for purposes of most of us here, it would good to learn more details, such as your mention of light (consistent, no extremes?) and conditions. A single comment out of a possible wider discussion could be misleading.

On the third hand, when shooting jpg with my bridge camera, slight under-exposure was preferred over slight over-exposure for tweaking in pp. Jpg only, bridge camera, about 2/3 stop.

Can you support that statement, please, that "Today much more detail is stored in the shadow areas." What you have stated is contrary to my knowledge of digital sensors so I'd be interested in seeing the supporting material. As far as I've learned, the most image information in digital is contained in the first half of the highlights on the sensor scale. From the Manual of Photography, "...this means that half of the available levels (2048) will be recorded for the brightest zone of the image (the highest exposure stop). For each stop down the scale of the recorded luminance range, the number of levels will be halved (1024 levels will be allocated to the next stop, 512 to the one after that, etc)....