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

Instead of the "Exposure Triangle" of my yesteryears, my current digital photography "triangle" is relatively equally weighted: = Focus / Exposure / Post Process, all done to achieve my intended situational Composition (what's in "my mind's eye") and frame filling, captured vision of the selected scene. I love SOOC, and all forms of "Auto & Scene Recognition", but more often than not, each time I come back to an SOOC/Auto shot, I'm tweaking it in PP, to polish/finalize the capture.

I shoot mostly Manual, followed by AP - Why? I grew up on film and manual cameras, understand composition and light, know what my intent is, so it just feels natural for me - YMMV. Do I use the rest of the dial when the convenience is helpful, or situation begs it, of course, as well as all the other features and capabilities of my equipment that fit the situation. At this age/stage of my development, Composition is ingrained and it seems my eyes/mind know what the light meter is going to tell me, where "auto" is going to take me, what shutter speed I need, etc. etc.

There is a plethora of great insight in this thread (and many others over time), when you read and digest the information, and put together all the better points and explanations (without naming and quoting all the great contributors), the question is answered (to me).
mike

But neither is the so-called exposure triangle a triangle. The exposure is composed of aperture and shutter speed - the ISO or film speed is the receptor. I think it confuses more people than it enlightens, as a metaphor. Either film speed or ISO sets a baseline for how the exposure itself is recorded.

olemikey, a talented photographer and literal rocket scientist, is using a slightly different triangle metaphor to express the three most important qualities of an image. So is bebulamar. It's no better or worse a metaphor than the "exposure triangle" - just a different way at looking at what's important in an image.

Andy

But neither is the so-called exposure triangle a triangle. The exposure is composed of aperture and shutter speed - the ISO or film speed is the receptor. I think it confuses more people than it enlightens, as a metaphor. Either film speed or ISO sets a baseline for how the exposure itself is recorded.

olemikey, a talented photographer and literal rocket scientist, is using a slightly different triangle metaphor to express the three most important qualities of an image. So is bebulamar. It's no better or worse a metaphor than the "exposure triangle" - just a different way at looking at what's important in an image.

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.?