I like the idea but not the execution. Some items should be swapped for others
***SW&D Photography Thread*** - Page 48
Styleforum Top Picks
I always thought it was better to do the opposite, "expose to the right" since the right half of the histogram contains much, much more information than the left. You can then bring the exposure down in Lightroom if needed but you still have much more information in your image than if you underexposed.
It really depends on your camera's meter and what you tend to shoot - some cameras blow highlights more easily than others. It's easier generally to recover shadow detail from RAW than highlight detail. I tend to find that for quick shooting when I don't have time to be sure I nailed the exposure, evaluative metering works better than spot, set with 1/3rd stop underexposure in very bright conditions. The short answer is 'it depends'...
Underexpose digital. Maybe not a full stop, but if you can get away with it, sure. Depends on your camera probably.
This has been one of the most noticeable progressions in digital over the years, in my experience. Used to have to nail the exposure +/- 1/3 stop. Now, the details I can pull out of shadows with my D800 is insane. It still feels a bit like cheating when shooting interiors.
I'm shooting 100% film at the moment and it's a fucking blast.
I'd show pictures but I find SF so cumbersome a platform to do that.
re: exposure - depends on what you want - I like blown highlights sometimes, and I like a lot of ultra shadow high contrast stuff (underexposing in harsh light is fun fun fun)
Agreed - the 'correct' exposure isn't always the one you want artistically.
One of the great things with black and white is how far you can push exposure and it still looks right. With colour some subjects will cope with severe under/over exposure and look fine, but skin tones have a much narrower range to look acceptable.