better to overexpose or underexpose

Are there any videos or blogs out there about technicalities of this subject?

Stop for Stop I always tend to underexpose just a bit as opposed to overexposing

I got into an argument with someone that said its better to overexpose than underexpose and I'm wondering if there is any technical truth

tbh when I do either 1 stop up or down I feel like I get the same results but I have also read in quite a few places that underexposing is a bit better because you retain a little more detail when you raise it up.

Someone said shadows or darker spots tend to hold a little more data than overexposure.


Thoughts?

I'm honestly just looking for links to professionals that discuss this

You never want to over expose, presuming that means you run a high risk of clipping data. Perhaps the person really meant to "expose to the right". That doesn't mean over exposure, that means filling your histogram with data toward the right side, instead of bunching up the graph in the middle or to the left (making the image darker).

So those that shoot in modes other than manual usually will run their exposure compensation up to +2/3 maybe, or 1 stop. Your images on the camera might look over exposed, but never use your LCD for your litmus test, because the LCD brightness, etc all can affect that perception.

Use the histogram, it will get you very close, even though that histogram is based on the JPG file (which means it is dependent on your picture style). If you get data that starts to touch the right edge, you are risking clipping, but if you shoot raw, you actually have something like an extra 1/2 stop beyond that right edge.

With the newer cameras with better DR, it isn't quite as necessary though, as with prior older models. The new sensor is more forgiving at very little detriment to pushing overall exposure or even just shadows a bit. Eventually we will get to the place where we no longer ever talk about "shooting to the right".

Right and its nice to know now what ETTR means and I kinda assumed but the original question the thread asked was

"Do you prefer to underexpose an image or over expose?"

I simply stated why I underexposed and he kept questioning why I say that and why I think its easier to retain detail from slightly underexposed vs overexposed

I would also suspect that it depends on what image you are trying to capture but if noise is a concern, shooting to the right will allow you to minimize noise. An image ETTR and brought back will show less noise than an equal image ETTL and pushed in post.

I found this ETTR explanation easy to follow: https://www.dpmag.com …hooting/overexp​osing-raw/

I've played around with this and had some great results. takes more fiddling in Post but it's worth it sometimes.

Nick Aufiero wrote in post #18337003
Right and its nice to know now what ETTR means and I kinda assumed but the original question the thread asked was

"Do you prefer to underexpose an image or over expose?"

I simply stated why I underexposed and he kept questioning why I say that and why I think its easier to retain detail from slightly underexposed vs overexposed

Over exposure and ETTR are IMO two different things, or at a minimum "over exposure" is the end result of taking ETTR too far. Said differently, if you "over expose" but are able to get your detail back later by bringing your exposure slider down, you didn't "over expose", you really just performed ETTR.

Rarely would you ever want to over expose. ETTR is almost always beneficial. There are no absolutes to either situation. So if you want an answer to the question, it is rarely ever good (or better) to over expose. However depending on what model camera you use and how high an ISO you shoot, it is rarely ever good to under expose as well.

If I recall correctly, "easier to retain detail from slightly underexposed" was far more true in the days of film.

With most digital sensors, if correct exposure in camera is not possible (why not???), then ETTR is the way to go.

You just have to be careful to not lose detail in any important highlights. Note that sometimes this will look underexposed to the meter or on the camera LCD! But the meter is just a tool, and the camera LCD lies, and even the histogram will trick you if you try to evaluate it independently of the subject matter.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18337032
Over exposure and ETTR are IMO two different things, or at a minimum "over exposure" is the end result of taking ETTR too far. Said differently, if you "over expose" but are able to get your detail back later by bringing your exposure slider down, you didn't "over expose", you really just performed ETTR.

Rarely would you ever want to over expose. ETTR is almost always beneficial. There are no absolutes to either situation. So if you want an answer to the question, it is rarely ever good (or better) to over expose. However depending on what model camera you use and how high an ISO you shoot, it is rarely ever good to under expose as well.

Yea, you are right, but I think it can also be used synonymously as ETTR means that the image you capture is going to be over exposed from a perfectly exposed image. But your right in that if you take ETTR too far you will get a greatly overexposed image.

again I just simply answered his question, as a whole I feel its better to slightly underexpose then overexpose
I just don't know why someone would ever overexpose so really I don't know why his question was asked unless he just meant he didn't have a flash and maybe wanted to overexpose a little to get detail in dark areas or something

idk

stupid question honestly but I always underexpose slightly as opposed to overexposing it

gjl711 wrote in post #18337058
Yea, you are right, but I think it can also be used synonymously as ETTR means that the image you capture is going to be over exposed from a perfectly exposed image. But your right in that if you take ETTR too far you will get a greatly overexposed image.

Just depends on how you determine "over exposure" then? If you use the image on the LCD, then you will want to keep your LCD brightness down below halfway. If you use blinkies, that might help, but again only if you know that just because something is blinking doesn't mean you have clipped those areas (if you shoot raw). If you use a histogram, your WB and picture styles can influence the graph pretty heavily to give you a false positive too.

I never use the term overexpose anyways these days with digital. I am either exposing to the right, or I have clipped highlights.

nathancarter wrote in post #18337044
If I recall correctly, "easier to retain detail from slightly underexposed" was far more true in the days of film.

With most digital sensors, if correct exposure in camera is not possible (why not???), then ETTR is the way to go.

You just have to be careful to not lose detail in any important highlights. Note that sometimes this will look underexposed to the meter or on the camera LCD! But the meter is just a tool, and the camera LCD lies, and even the histogram will trick you if you try to evaluate it independently of the subject matter.

...in the days of TRANSPARENCY film! Color neg liked more exposure to make colors less 'muddy' in the shadows, and in the scene highlights the increased density on the negative did't really harm a lot.
That is why, particularly in the early days of digital, the saying was "Shooting digital is like shooting slides" Given that, I would prefer err on the side of underexposing, as one can never regain lost details in blown out highlight areas even with RAW conversion efforts. You can recover underexposure far better.

Nick Aufiero wrote in post #18337061
again I just simply answered his question, as a whole I feel its better to slightly underexpose then overexpose
I just don't know why someone would ever overexpose so really I don't know why his question was asked unless he just meant he didn't have a flash and maybe wanted to overexpose a little to get detail in dark areas or something

idk

stupid question honestly but I always underexpose slightly as opposed to overexposing it

The reason is that you move from a digital mathematical pushing of a shadow in post versus the more clean analog amplification in-camera by pushing to the right.

Some sensors (like a majority of Canon models minus the 80D, 5D4 and 1DX2) introduce random electronic noise into the shadows of your images. If you bias your shot toward those areas, and push them up later, you also push up this random bad noise, since you are just mathematically increasing the brightness of each data point. If you use the analog ISO amplification to push the brightness up (as long as you are in the native ISO range of the camera), you will typcially get less noise, especially if you can pull down those areas in post later if needed.

Sensors that are very clean in the shadows don't have these same issues, or certainly not to the same level. You have more flexibility in post with those cameras.

If you are happy with how you do it, and you don't get any extra unacceptable noise this way, just keep doing the same thing.

well right and I always tell people you should up your ISO and properly expose. But this was a simple Overexposed vs Underexposed question.

Which I don't get why that was even a question but yeah

Nick Aufiero wrote in post #18337061
again I just simply answered his question, as a whole I feel its better to slightly underexpose then overexpose
I just don't know why someone would ever overexpose so really I don't know why his question was asked unless he just meant he didn't have a flash and maybe wanted to overexpose a little to get detail in dark areas or something

idk

stupid question honestly but I always underexpose slightly as opposed to overexposing it

Other than being able to capture rapid movement in the dark, or preserving details in the highlights, I really can't think of an advantage of shooting to the left.

gjl711 wrote in post #18337069
Other than being able to capture rapid movement in the dark, or preserving details in the highlights, I really can't think of an advantage of shooting to the left.

I believe in some cases, shooting to the left increases DR, or at least allows you maximum DR at that ISO. As you raise your ISO, you lose DR, or at least that is what I remember from prior discussions. So if DR is your main concern, ETTL works. If noise control is your main concern, ETTR works.

Then again, take this with a grain of salt, as my memory vs reality of those discussions may not match up.

I think this other forum's post agrees what what is being said here.
https://photo.stackexc​hange.com …-for-the-highlights/64508