Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Just my opinion BUT

The EXIF data says you have +0.3 exposure compensation, not 1 stop.
I wouldn't say it is significantly overexposed.
It appears this is a crop from the full photo, so I can't say if the exposure is right for all of it, if it was averaging.
I can't tell how you metered (spot, average,etc.) so it is a reasonable exposure, if not perfect. Post-processing should get you what you want.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Jules what cjc2... use the histogram (not the screen).

However your image could likely be elegantly balanced in post production with Photomatix Pro
https://www.hdrsoft.com/
Or similar
http://hdreditingsoftware.com/best-alternatives-photomatix-pro/

Please be advised that there is a significant learning curve associated with using HDR effective...
That said, I deploy it frequently... especially for high value assignments...

Best advice? Learn to read your Histograms effectively... forget what you see on the camera back display screen... and if recompense warrants deploy HDR in post.

Hope this helps Jules... or is at least food for thought

Example of an image taken with a Nikon D7200 under extreme harsh back-lighting by direct low angle sunlight. HDR was used in Post Processing to retain detail in this talent's gorgeous back-lit tresses... frontal fill in this case was actually provided by on camera flash...
.

Nikon D7200 w/ Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8

(Download)

Nikon D7200 w/ Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8

(Download)

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

Great shot, and wonderful information. I must and will use the histogram from now on. I am shooting again on Monday and will be it to the test.

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

Yep from a full photo and yes way over exposed. Matrix metering.

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

I want to thank all the club members who commented on this subject. It helped immensely. This is why I look forward to every morning and opening up UGG. So much good information and comments. Thanks to all once again,
Jules

Weddingguy Loc: British Columbia - Canada

" I get what I think is the right exposure, get home put pics. on the computer and some are over exposed by half a stop or more. But look right in the viewfinder. "

I am quite surprised that no one has yet to give you a straight answer to your question above.

The reason the images look differently on the camera screen from the computer screen, is because both have brightness adjustments, and one is not matched to the other.
Typically the LCD on the camera is set to make it easy to view in out door light . . . much brighter than being able to give you an accurate idea of the exposure of the image.
Think about this . . . if you underexposed an image by, say, 1 full stop . . . would increasing the LCD brightness on the camera correct the under exposure? Of course not. The LCD is for viewing the subject and composition, not for judging exposure. Not even sharpness or color balance can be accurately judged on the LCD
Several members gave good advice in that the only accurate way of judging exposure of an image on the camera is by learning to read the histogram. Google it for "simple to follow" instructions.

Hope that helps.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

That answer is above, multiple times.

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

I look at my shots at 100% in the camera play back. That tells me if my focus is dead on.
Thanks for the info.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Switch to a mirrorless camera. Then what you see in the viewfinder is what you will get. And unlike an LCD, there is no problem seeing the view in the viewfinder in bright sunlight.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

If you shoot in raw your highlights here are easily recoverable

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Yes - good edit - but OP should still be able to get it right in camera - I agree the lighting is difficult but........
an EVF could have helped.

olsonsview

You may try adding a flash to your toolkit? A little bit of fill flash will bring up the shadow areas on the lovely ladies face and bring the dynamic range of the picture to fit the sensor better. You will also add a twinkle to the eyes which is very pleasant. You may notice that a pro shooting weddings outdoors still uses his flash. Also if not using a flash why not turn down the ISO to the camera's lowest to increase the dynamic range? A digital camera records a wider range with lower ISO settings.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I disagree that the OP would have been able to get it "right" in camera (depending on just what your definition of "right" is). The face is in shadow, the background is well lit. To brighten the face you would have had to overexpose the background.

You have to ask yourself what the purpose of the photo is. If it's journalistic or forensic, then you should be emphasizing with the exposure the particular feature you are interested in. If it's a portrait, I see nothing wrong with postprocessing to even things out. Since the OP did not specify that the photo was for any specific purpose I have assumed that it's a portrait.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

In-camera settings should be able to adjust contrast, saturation, WB, Sharp, and noise control. Are you suggesting that adjusting those elements could not improve things? Or perhaps a scene mode? Is it not about knowing one's gear inside and out? or even Auto?