wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

Of course it is best to have exposure right on. This is my thought - In film you can not do much with a thin underexposed negative. I know this from doing darkroom work for years. If you blow out the highlights in digital there is not much I can do maybe someone else can. - Dave

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

Hey Doc ..... you are correct my friend ..... anyone that says different hasn't been where we were .....

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I would never say “always” about anything.

It’s better to get the exposure right, but we (and the camera’s meter) are not always right. Bracketing is cheap insurance.

The downside of underexposing is that you are more likely to collect noise in the shadow areas. Exposing digital to the right (without blowing out the highlights) protects against this.

If exposure is critical, exposing to the right and bracketing while recording raw should compensate for your metering errors.

And your computer will do a better job of converting raw to JPG than your camera can.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Geez - how many times do we need to repeat this. Exposing to the right does NOT mean blowing out the highlights. It means to fill that histogram as far to the right as possible WITHOUT blowing them out. Any significant gap on the right side indicates a loss of data since there is FAR more information in the highlights than the shadows.

This certainly does not mean you want to pile things up on the right end. And yes, there are some instances in which an image will be all mid-tones with no real whites and no blacks. But that is not a normal image - images in fog might would be an example.

f4frank

John;

I am fairly new to UHH and this is actually my first post. After reading many topics and following the various threads, I'm reluctant to say anthing as some appear to only push their agenda rather than actually knowing, start to finish the pro's and con's. Some time ago I had a discussion with a fellow photographer and he suggested that I read up on ETTR. So I looked up ETTR on the internet and read about 15 articles on this topic. It would be worth your while to take some time and look up "ETTR". Articles on the internet will provide you with a multitude of information from people who've actually designed cameras, designed software and have an expert knowledge of this exact topic.
After my exploration I feel very comfortable in knowing what I'm looking for in my camera and histogram. Also, several of the articles have images attached which demonstrate the noise levels from under and over exposing images. Well worth your time in actually getting the "other side of the story". I did try to post the above referenced article but I couldn't get the images to appear hear. Perhaps someone can tell me how to post a quoted article that contains images. Thanks

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

Hey Doc ..... I don't shoot raw, and the Arizona sun is very bright ..... It's way too easy to blow out highlights here so I underexpose ...... not sometimes but always .....

..... post processing digital is a lot more involved than the out of camera exposure .....

..... bracketing as I see it is a waste of time because my slight underexposure is corrected in a matter of seconds with PS .....

..... pixel peepers may but will most likely not see any difference favoring the right of the histogram unless your blowing up poster size ..... It's very rare for me to have any objectionable noise in the shadows but then again I'm not pixel peeping .....

..... I do surveillance work ..... try reading that license plate at 100 yards with what you may call a good exposure ..... 90 out of 100 times it'll be over exposed enough that you can't read it and with darkening you'll never get it back either ..... underexpose and the vision of that plate becomes a piece of cake with PS, like magic, poof, there it is, easy to read ..... and you can take this to the bank .....

Shuttergram Loc: Colorado

If you are thinking of using post processing, I much prefer to underexpose than overexpose. If you have blown out details by overexposure, there's not much you can do to get the details back, but when underexposed you are more apt to be able to correct the details instead of losing them.

saxkiwi Loc: New Zealand

Over exposure is better than under exposing as you can burn the detail in more so than trying to get detail out of an underexposed shot.

RJM Loc: Cardiff, S Wales, UK

There are some good articles out there, probably from far more knowledge people than frequent this forum.

They explain it is better, in RAW to expose to the right (ETTR), and why.

It's to do with the way the 16 bit channels (12 are used) of the cameras sensor and how if you under expose there is a subsequent loss of recorded information down through the channels.

By ETTR more information is recorded in the shadows which can be retrieved in post processing.

BUT....if you prefer to under expose then it's your picture so you do as you see fit.

ag photog Loc: Atlanta, Georgia

Glad you shared. This is the first I had heard that one well known book says under expose and Scott Kelby says to over. I would have to say that from my experience under has been easier for me in post, but as ALWAYS...opinions come out when discussing almost ANYTHING. No big deal! Most of us are here to learn and share, so we really shouldn't take anything to the point of being too critical of one another. Thanks for your share! :)

RJM Loc: Cardiff, S Wales, UK

That's a good point.

We can only learn by doing. It may be a good idea to take under and over exposed shots of the same scene and see if we notice a difference.

We can set up our cameras to take a JPEG and RAW at the same time.

I think, individually, we can learn a lot from 'doing' ourselves and see what suits.

mikemilton

I think that getting the 'right' exposure is a critical thing to work on.

That said, 'right' depends on what you want.

Some people are (mysteriously, IMHO) dedicated to getting a final result in camera. For them. right means the exposure that will give the final result they want. For them 'right' exposure might vary if they want high or low key images (although I'm guessing this crowd has a fetish for 'accurate' rendition of tone). Exposure might also vary if presented with a high dynamic range scene where they want to keep more (or less) of the highlight or shadow.

For me, 'right' means the exposure that give you the most information available for post processing. Given the nature of digital sensors, this often means more exposure than would be 'right' for in camera final jpg creation.

Hey this isn't slide film any more (thankfully)

Jazzer Loc: Lawrence,Ma

When I shoot jazz musicians on their gigs I shoot B/W, high contrast and underexpose until I get the image I have in mind. Underexpose, overexpose or right on it's whatever works to get the end result.

JoeB Loc: Mohawk Valley, NY

Please don't feel that way, you will find that there are varying opinions on many subjects on this forum, and I for one happen to agree with what you posted. I have found that even the "Pros" get it wrong every now and then, nobody is perfect.

mikemilton

Exactly. Whatever works with the process you are using.