Does Underexposing Still Make Sense In Digi Photos?

[THAIPHUKET]

With slides you got what you shot. Little room for print manipulation. Vibrant colors meant underexposing. Do you get a better large format print by underexposing digis too or are you taking information out with you may to keep for whatever reason.

Shooting at average metering and play wnith photo programs?

I dont understand the limitations of computer manipulation, on screen you can do almost anything it will look good or interesting but on print??

[hanno]

I shoot mostly RAW and tend to overexpose as much more detail is available in overexposed pictures than underexposed ones (all sorts of noise in dark areas). Obviously, I make sure that I get no "clipping" in the overexposed pictures. Only time I underexpose is when I need that extra speed (but then my camera is pretty good with noise so this rarely happens).

[THAIPHUKET]

That means, you don't know really what you get. 1/3 minus stop in a slide gave you your desired result. No more fooling around later. Doesn't it drive you nuts that this means

1. you don't see what you shot, not on camera , not on PC

2. that each and every one of the shots need to be "treated"

Is that not a huge step backwards? (except savings on film), is it not more guessing?

How much you overexpose?? And how much can you underexpose the data with the PC?

Plus X stops minus y stops?? How much is too much? How to achieve a predictable result ?

[hanno]

How much you overexpose??

I look at my display and overexpose to the point where I get first clipping warnings.

I think it is not so much guesswork as any decent camera display will give you immediate feedback. Also note that this applies to RAW in particular, which does give you a lot more latitude. And as for tweaking, I am pretty sure that Ansel Adams tweaked his photos

Obviously, there is also a slight difference of whether you shoot record shots or are really after something special.

Hanno

[THAIPHUKET]

That is like the old b&w film, were we overexposed, I understand.

Let me try again, what I want=

the almost perfect shot IN CAMERA like you did it with slides. No further processing.

It seem to no shot comes out of a digi which is not a bit murky, needs ...........whatever.

2. clipping highlights on the screen or on the histogram??

[hanno]

It seem to no shot comes out of a digi which is not a bit murky, needs ...........whatever.

Are you shooting RAW?

clipping highlights on the screen or on the histogram

I have a camera that shows both, doesn't really make a difference though I find it is easier to evaluate on the screen.

[IanForbes]

Most of the time I just shoot snapshots for personal reference. I seldom need to use anything other than automatic program. BUT, if I see a subject that I feel will make a great photo I'll shoot in RAW, and even then bracket my shots a couple of F stops. It sure makes the end result more certain. Years ago I would shoot most of my slides in the bracket form, but 90% of the time the middle shot (like automatic) would still be the best of the bunch. however, It IS quite amazing how an expert with Adobe Photoshop can improve an otherwise so-so photo.

[fabianfred]

I find the auto exposure quite accurate nowadays. But I do often lower the gamma a little to give a it more saturation.

Then I often bracket exposures for use with HDR too.