If you take a look at the last 4 or 5 issues of Professional Photographer Magazine, you will find almost all of the exposures are "under exposed". That is, if you looked at the histogram for these cover shots, you would have almost no whites on the right side. Perhaps the photographer exposed to the right (ETTR) to get the whites almost up against the right side of the histogram and then decreased exposure in post production. That, to me, may be the most sensible way to expose to make sure you have all the detail in the darker tones that you want. Does that make sense?

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.?

If you take a look at the last 4 or 5 issues of Professional Photographer Magazine, you will find almost all of the exposures are "under exposed". That is, if you looked at the histogram for these cover shots, you would have almost no whites on the right side. Perhaps the photographer exposed to the right (ETTR) to get the whites almost up against the right side of the histogram and then decreased exposure in post production. That, to me, may be the most sensible way to expose to make sure you have all the detail in the darker tones that you want. Does that make sense?

What does "correct" exposure mean?

If you mean an exposure that allows you to print the full dynamic range of the scene in your selected medium (monitor, paper, metal print, transparency, etc.) then it means exposing for the highlights in digital media, exposing for the shadows in film.

If you intend to project a high key or low key image, one that runs either the highlights or shadows together, but leaves the other end well delineated, it's something different as well.

I remember taking sunset photos in my early years, with a film camera and hand held meter. I bracketed at one stop intervals on Kodachrome to get a variety of choices for my final images. You couldn't stretch the contrast in the darkroom, and underexposed slides developed a greenish or bluish cast that was very unappealing. I would meter on the foreground, on an average basis, and on an incident dome, to see what looked best.

The answer, as Kodachrome veterans may have already inferred, is "it depends". Sometimes the vision I saw in the viewfinder was best expressed as a darker exposure, sometimes one that would objectively be considered overexposed.

It was always an artistic or value judgment, even in this inherently SOOC type of photography. Although we have more tools to expand our choices on how to project our visions today, it remains an artistic judgment, at least in my opinion.

Andy

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.?