Underexposing Good or Bad?

So a friend of mine has stated a few times now that he likes to underexpose his shots by one stop. Simply because when processing he doesn't lose any of the highlights when he brings up the exposure in Lightroom.

I can understand not overexposing but is underexposing any better? I try to keep te normal shots exposed as correctly as I can get them.

What do you all think?

I wouldnt underexpose as a general rule. I guess while doing weddings its better to miss under than over because a blown white dress is a tragedy, but I wouldnt go there as a workflow.

Again, I wouldn't underexpose as a general rule.

I do find sometimes, if I have a subject with white areas in bright sunlight, and I don't want to lose detail with the whites blowing out, that I may have to expose at a setting that does underexpose the rest of the scene to a degree, but that is a specific situation and I would normally try and avoid it by using a shadier spot to get the whites out of the harsh light.

I certainly wouldn't choose to always underexpose by a stop "just in case". If I think there may be an issue with whites blowing, I take a test shot and check the histogram and then set exposure accordingly. Underexposing and bringing the image up in post can cause increased noise levels amongst other things. Many people like to "expose to the right", slightly overexposing but keeping the whites under control, as that can improve the quality when you dial it down slightly, compared to the correct exposure in the first place.

Occasional "underexposure" is fine, when required to stop whites blowing out, but doing it all the time is not (IMO) good practice at all. If your friend is worried about inadvertently blowing whites, suggest they check the histogram after a test shot and then expose accordingly.

I moved this thread to TALK as you don't have images to share and pros can come on in TALK to help you.

Expose in such a way that you don't lose detail in the IMPORTANT highlights.

Use the histogram and the "blinkies" to help you figure out what exposure values you need to accomplish this.

Remember that some highlights are unimportant and you can lose some detail there if you need to - e.g. the hottest part of the room's light sources, a specular reflection along the edge of something shiny, or some parts of a solid, flat, nontextured bright-white object. The bride's dress should never be clipping or losing detail, though.

Sometimes the meter will try to tell you that you're underexposed ... but remember that the meter wants to help you make perfectly average photos. If you want better-than-average photos, you've gotta take the meter's advice with a grain of salt.

Under exposing without using flash will definitely lead to darker images, of course. Under exposing the ambient light by one stop while using flash (on-or off-camera) to light your subject is a great way to make your images pop and you can control how much light hits the subject so a white dress will still maintain detail.

I'm shooting a wedding tomorrow and the groom has asked me not to use a flash. He wants all natural lighting. I suppose I can accomplish this with my 50mm 1.4 and my 70-200 2.8. I'd really like to use my 24-105. It's my go to lens especially in small spaces like the one I'll be in tomorrow. We'll see how things go.

Shooting so that you don't clip highlights and also NOT using flash is a very limiting way to shoot. I almost never shoot that way.

If you had control of the lighting, that's one thing. But since you are asked to shoot without flash, I really wouldn't worry about it too much...

As for the 24-105L, it depends on the lighting. It might be too slow. That I.S. won't do jack to stop subject motion if you aren't getting fast enough shutter speed. But again, it depends on the lighting.

Personally, for anything remotely dim, I'd stick with the prime and the 70-200.

i under expose on if
1. i need the shutter speed to be at least say 1/60 when i max out ISO4000 and f/1.4... (rare dark location)

2. actual location of photo shoot is near dark. so to correct expose for the lit subject is to underexpose.

Your friend is right to be concerned with the highlights and not blowing out the highlights, particularly in wedding photography, but as a general rule underexposing is not good practice. Ideally, the goal would be to make the most of the full dynamic range of the camera.

I am the total opposite. I overexpose a small amount. Lightroom allows me to bring back detail in the highlights and I keep detail in the shadows. Underexposing that much then bringing the exposure back to normal will introduce noise in the shadow areas.
I would suggest you experiment on your own to see which method will work best for how you shoot and your style.

nicksan wrote in post #15942752
Shooting so that you don't clip highlights and also NOT using flash is a very limiting way to shoot. I almost never shoot that way.

I'm the opposite I almost always shoot the majority of the day that way.

I find photos easier to bring back to life if they're overexposed a little. Recovering underexposed photos often results in unattractive noise.

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #15943917
I'm the opposite I almost always shoot the majority of the day that way.

Just in case this was misinterpreted, I meant to say shooting so that you don't clip highlights is a limiting way to shoot.

Some people worry so much about the "blinkies" that they avoid it like the plague. And again, that's very limiting.

I'm not a slave to my histogram.

nicksan wrote in post #15945611
Just in case this was misinterpreted, I meant to say shooting so that you don't clip highlights is a limiting way to shoot.

Some people worry so much about the "blinkies" that they avoid it like the plague. And again, that's very limiting.

I'm not a slave to my histogram.

I don't bother with the histogram or blinkies. I use Liveview (exposure compensation mode) to judge and go by what I see. It works as a fairly accurate way to avoid clipping the important stuff... but I rarely touch the flash