On bad shot

If you are shooting RAW, what would you rather do?

Under expose or over expose?

Which is better to correct. I have heard this two different ways.

I remember when I was a kid learning golf. It was during putting practice. I asked my dad is it better to miss by going short, or by going long on the putt. He said, "Who cares, you still missed."

The answer to your question is that it is better to expose correctly.

And with digital, you don't have to wait till you get out of the darkroom for feedback. You have the histogram right there on the camera.

Rad

A clipped image is clipped. Period. Blown highlights may be able to be recovered, but they never look that good. Conversely loss in the shadows usually results in more noticable noise when the exposure is pushed up in raw. Either way, the image will have problems. In extreme situations, such back lit subjects, or low light, be sure that the subject is exposed as well as possible. You can use Alt-click in ACR on the Exposure and Shadows slider to see exactly where the image is clipped. As Radtech, explained get it as close to perfect as possible in camera, using the histogram review. Then use software tools to analyze and adjust the image. Raw isn't a wonder drug for poor exposures, but it is a helpful tool in deciding how to get a good image.

Agreed. It's best to get the shot as perfect as possible. In hi contrast or harsh shadow images, a tripod and bracketing works too. Then you can combine images in photoshop. And it's always best to miss your putt long.

Is "getting the right exposure" an option?

I think the better question is, "I muffed the shot, should I try to salvage the underexposed image or...."

TommyMoe said: And it's always best to miss your putt long.

That's for sure. If you're short, the ball won't go in the hole even if it is on the right line to go in. Ya gotta give it the chance.

In a way, this applies to exposing an image correctly, too.

Come on guys, obviously getting it right is best, everyone knows that. The question is a valid one. Like people have said, overexposing an image means clipping, you've basically lost it. Underexposure you can recover, to a degree. I've recovered ISO200 images that were 3 stops underexposed, they don't look perfect but suprisingly good.

Before you start to use RAW seriously you must read this book, even if you don't use CS2.

tim wrote:
Come on guys, obviously getting it right is best, everyone knows that. The question is a valid one. Like people have said, overexposing an image means clipping, you've basically lost it. Underexposure you can recover, to a degree. I've recovered ISO200 images that were 3 stops underexposed, they don't look perfect but suprisingly good.

Before you start to use RAW seriously you must read this book, even if you don't use CS2.

Good job on answering this one Tim...

you know you are a book machine...

Cheers,

I have a few photography books... at least a dozen. Now I just have to find time to read some of them!