Is it best to under expose or over expose?

[Magnum]

I just had a try at shooting a panorama from my garden, to find that certain parts of the scene were over exposed. I could fix this when taking the pics but it would mean that some parts would be under exposed.
When trying to recover under/over exposed images, which gives the best results?
This is only when perfect exposure throughout the pano is not possible.

 

[pearce_jj]

this is what HDR is for - take three shots bracketed, then HDR combines and tone maps them into one finished article.

 

[KIPAX]

I was always told to expose to the right.. which is over expose. But recently had a conversation with someone who said that landscape follows a different rule and underexpose... so I am not much help am I

 

[Grendel]

I think conventional wisdom is to slightly underexpose when shooting digital as you are able to pull back the exposure if necessary in PP.

 

[RobbieW]

I was always led to believe its best to under expose slightly as you can bring detail back, where as once its over exposed the detail has gone.

 

[PsiFox]

I was taught from my film days the following in order:
1. expose correctly

2. If you can't do 1 then bracket

3. If you cant do 1 or 2 then underexpose as you can always bring out the detail but you can't put it back where it is already lost.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

I was always told to expose to the right.. which is over expose. But recently had a conversation with someone who said that landscape follows a different rule and underexpose... so I am not much help am I

No thats more about shifting the histogram to the right to gather more information with the sensors we use, more specifically how they work and gather light.

Its better to think ... 'push it to the right when there's room, but still never blow the highlights'

Although I ignore that possible advantage for another reason and I can't remember what that is...

---

Underexposing a landscape will mean your going to gather more information about the bright bits (that overexposed sky) but less about the shadowed bits.

 

[Yv]

Hmm, when I first bought into digital Nikons, I was told they by nature underexpose slightly because thats easier to retrieve than blown highlights - no idea whether its true ot not. In normal conditions, correct exposure is best i think, but I have found that if using higher ISO settings, a little over exposure helps reduce the impact of the noise but no idea if that is specific to my Nikons or a general rule of thumb, especially as the idea of higher ISO's is for poorer light so over exposure often mean an even higher number, but somehow it works

 

[8utters]

I definatly think it's better to underexpose (really it's best to get the correct exposure in the first place, but if one of my photos dosn't come out right i'd rather it be under than over).

You can do more with an underexposed photo than an overexposed one. If it's heavily overexposed, it will be pretty much runied beyond repair due to the blown highlights, with an underexposed photo you can bring the levels up and pretty much recover the photo perrectly. However in some extreme cases it just causes really nasty noise.

I'v had so many underexposed photos that I have just edited in Photoshop, they come out looking fine

 

[Eau Rouge]

I would say over-expose, but crucially, not so far as you blow any highlights out.

It is, I understand, to do with noise, something that is usually more prominent in under-exposed areas of a shot. If you slight over-expose them, then correct it when developing the RAW file, you should get less noise, and since you haven't blown the highlights, you won't be losing any detail.

If you blow the highlights, they are gone.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

Hmm, when I first bought into digital Nikons, I was told they by nature underexpose slightly because thats easier to retrieve than blown highlights - no idea whether its true ot not.

Yeah I say so.... My D70 meter defiantly does that Yvonne, under when its bright, over when its dim and dark ... good use of the sensor and its abilities, as it aids the processing part, when and if, you have to pull the settings around to get the correct exposure.

The fact that I've noticed it overexposes very slightly when dim or dark, matches your over expose ISO idea ... I'm would think it has something to do with the histogram being more useful situated over to the right slightly ...in doing so you gather more detail information and reduce the noise.


Does that make any sense...

 

[Gandhi]

^^ true^^

If you underexpose and try to bring back the shadows you will introduce more noise.

If you over-expose slightly and try to pull it back you wont. Shoot raw and you can generally be a good 1/2 a stop overexposed and still pull back the highlight detail.

 

[Gandhi]

If you're shooting a pano then you may need to accept that certain parts of the image are going to be off exposure wise, in less than ideal conditions.

Otherwise, you're probably better off underexposing slightly, unless you're going to match the exposures before you stitch them, which is mucho trickiness. General consensus of opinion is meter for the brightest part of the scene and then lock the exposure.

The reason I say this is that afaik no pano stitching programs will let you stitch RAW files, and with jpegs, once the highlights are lost they're lost forever poor things. Whereas you can probably retrieve some of the shadow detail, even if it does get a bit noisy.