Many folks here say or imply that getting the "correct" exposure is a must if you want to get good images. Many will add that you have to shoot in "manual" to get control of the camera and get that "correct" exposure. I'm wondering what message this sends to newcomers.

Yes, you should try to get the exposure as close to "perfect" in the camera.

Yes, there are difficult lighting situations that can cause the camera's light meter to give you readings that may be wrong for what you want. But, let's face it, changing exposure is just a matter of letting in more or less light and/or changing the ISO. The light meters in modern cameras are pretty darn good. And if the lighting is squirrelly, you can make the proper up or down adjustments using exposure compensation if you're in one of the auto modes. And you have a fair amount of control in post-processing, particularly if you're shooting RAW.

I don't mean to resuscitate the Manual vs. semi-auto modes debate. I'm just wondering if there is too much of a mystique being attached to getting the "proper" exposure. So how important is it to "nail" the exposure settings? Aren't there more important, or at least equally important considerations such as focus, depth of field, etc.?

No; I'm not going to post questions on the importance of other elements of good photography and I don't understand your negative tone. Exposure is one that, based on my reading of UHH posts, somehow has been elevated to a level not accorded to other aspects of photography.

And I'm not sure I understand why....

In most cases the camera, set to semi-auto modes, will give you decent exposures you can work with. Newcomers to photography might be better off concentrating on other things first....

Many folks here say or imply that getting the "correct" exposure is a must if you want to get good images. Many will add that you have to shoot in "manual" to get control of the camera and get that "correct" exposure. I'm wondering what message this sends to newcomers.

Yes, you should try to get the exposure as close to "perfect" in the camera.

Yes, there are difficult lighting situations that can cause the camera's light meter to give you readings that may be wrong for what you want. But, let's face it, changing exposure is just a matter of letting in more or less light and/or changing the ISO. The light meters in modern cameras are pretty darn good. And if the lighting is squirrelly, you can make the proper up or down adjustments using exposure compensation if you're in one of the auto modes. And you have a fair amount of control in post-processing, particularly if you're shooting RAW.

I don't mean to resuscitate the Manual vs. semi-auto modes debate. I'm just wondering if there is too much of a mystique being attached to getting the "proper" exposure. So how important is it to "nail" the exposure settings? Aren't there more important, or at least equally important considerations such as focus, depth of field, etc.?

Many folks here say or imply that getting the "correct" exposure is a must if you want to get good images. Many will add that you have to shoot in "manual" to get control of the camera and get that "correct" exposure. I'm wondering what message this sends to newcomers.

Yes, you should try to get the exposure as close to "perfect" in the camera.

Yes, there are difficult lighting situations that can cause the camera's light meter to give you readings that may be wrong for what you want. But, let's face it, changing exposure is just a matter of letting in more or less light and/or changing the ISO. The light meters in modern cameras are pretty darn good. And if the lighting is squirrelly, you can make the proper up or down adjustments using exposure compensation if you're in one of the auto modes. And you have a fair amount of control in post-processing, particularly if you're shooting RAW.

I don't mean to resuscitate the Manual vs. semi-auto modes debate. I'm just wondering if there is too much of a mystique being attached to getting the "proper" exposure. So how important is it to "nail" the exposure settings? Aren't there more important, or at least equally important considerations such as focus, depth of field, etc.?

Many folks here say or imply that getting the "correct" exposure is a must if you want to get good images. Many will add that you have to shoot in "manual" to get control of the camera and get that "correct" exposure. I'm wondering what message this sends to newcomers.

Yes, you should try to get the exposure as close to "perfect" in the camera.

Yes, there are difficult lighting situations that can cause the camera's light meter to give you readings that may be wrong for what you want. But, let's face it, changing exposure is just a matter of letting in more or less light and/or changing the ISO. The light meters in modern cameras are pretty darn good. And if the lighting is squirrelly, you can make the proper up or down adjustments using exposure compensation if you're in one of the auto modes. And you have a fair amount of control in post-processing, particularly if you're shooting RAW.

I don't mean to resuscitate the Manual vs. semi-auto modes debate. I'm just wondering if there is too much of a mystique being attached to getting the "proper" exposure. So how important is it to "nail" the exposure settings? Aren't there more important, or at least equally important considerations such as focus, depth of field, etc.?

Many folks here say or imply that getting the "correct" exposure is a must if you want to get good images. Many will add that you have to shoot in "manual" to get control of the camera and get that "correct" exposure. I'm wondering what message this sends to newcomers.

Yes, you should try to get the exposure as close to "perfect" in the camera.

Yes, there are difficult lighting situations that can cause the camera's light meter to give you readings that may be wrong for what you want. But, let's face it, changing exposure is just a matter of letting in more or less light and/or changing the ISO. The light meters in modern cameras are pretty darn good. And if the lighting is squirrelly, you can make the proper up or down adjustments using exposure compensation if you're in one of the auto modes. And you have a fair amount of control in post-processing, particularly if you're shooting RAW.

I don't mean to resuscitate the Manual vs. semi-auto modes debate. I'm just wondering if there is too much of a mystique being attached to getting the "proper" exposure. So how important is it to "nail" the exposure settings? Aren't there more important, or at least equally important considerations such as focus, depth of field, etc.?

I try to get the exposure right FOR MY EYES, not the camera's. I commonly use Aperture priority and exposure compensation to get the exposure right IN MY EYES.
For me the correct exposure may be what other's consider overexposed or underexposed. But, IN MY EYES, it is the correct exposure. The following are some examples of what, in my eyes, are correct exposures.
And yes, I can do work in post, put it is usually for other things besides exposure. And I use JEPG. and I find it works really well for me even in post.

Many folks here say or imply that getting the "correct" exposure is a must if you want to get good images. Many will add that you have to shoot in "manual" to get control of the camera and get that "correct" exposure. I'm wondering what message this sends to newcomers.

Yes, you should try to get the exposure as close to "perfect" in the camera.

Yes, there are difficult lighting situations that can cause the camera's light meter to give you readings that may be wrong for what you want. But, let's face it, changing exposure is just a matter of letting in more or less light and/or changing the ISO. The light meters in modern cameras are pretty darn good. And if the lighting is squirrelly, you can make the proper up or down adjustments using exposure compensation if you're in one of the auto modes. And you have a fair amount of control in post-processing, particularly if you're shooting RAW.

I don't mean to resuscitate the Manual vs. semi-auto modes debate. I'm just wondering if there is too much of a mystique being attached to getting the "proper" exposure. So how important is it to "nail" the exposure settings? Aren't there more important, or at least equally important considerations such as focus, depth of field, etc.?