[shuttertalk]

Came across this recommendation from lifehacker to essentially try to overexpose rather than underexpose when shooting tricky lighting conditions, so that it can be more easily post-processed.

This flies in the face of the usual recommendation to underexpose rather than overexpose, as detail can be recovered from the shadows more easily than from overexposed areas. Their argument is that bumping up exposure usually introduces noise...

http://lifehacker.com/5587308/overexpose...g-later-on

I don't know - maybe I shouldn't be reading photography tips from a non-photography blog...

[matthew]

if a picture is only slightly overexposed, you can usually bring it back fairly easy in something like Photoshop.

Well, yes and no - if I'm working with my D700, yes; if I'm working with my GH1, not so much.

really, this doesn't sound much different than the 'expose to the right' approach that can be very effective for raw photos. I'm actually not a huge fan of that method either, since I think it skews the colours and tones too much when I pull the images back, but I have to admit that I don't worry too much about thirds of a stop.

[Pavel]

Short of graduated ND filters or HDR, blown highlights are lost. Period. Small overexposure could be partially recovered - true. Bumping up shadows does introduce noise and can distort colors and this may force you into BW. Blown highlights mean a lost info. you can clone or some such, but that is it.

I just bought a set of Cokin GNDs (not the best, but the cheapest), theoretically giving me (if combined) 6 f-stops. I am sure that if the filters were aligned the resulting photo would be horrible - so i hope i will never need it. Looking forward to a clear day and low sun to test my setup. It is either that or steal Matthew's D700

[shuttertalk]

Looking forward to a clear day and low sun to test my setup. It is either that or steal Matthew's D700

I approve of the 2nd option.

[EnglishBob]

What's wrong with just getting the exposure right?

I will always under rather than over expose.

[Toad]

This flies in the face of the usual recommendation to underexpose rather than overexpose, as detail can be recovered from the shadows more easily than from overexposed areas. Their argument is that bumping up exposure usually introduces noise...

I would rather have detail with noise than noisless blank areas...

[Keith Alan]

When I shoot in low light, I try for correct exposure but definitely prefer overexposure to under.
When you bump up the exposure in post, the noise gets amplified, too.
Correct exposure with my camera at iso1600 usually means almost no noise, and if I darken a slight overexposure in post the noise goes away completely.

[Irma]

When I am shooting tricky lighting conditions I use a GND filter... I know I will get all information in my file. In a situation when I have to decide with my G9 I expose to the dark areas and over expose my highlights. It is very difficult to get rid of the noise that G9 gives. If I have my 5D I really don't care much about the noise in dark areas because I know it will not be too much and it is easier to remove when get my details back with pp.

Sometimes I overexpose my sky on propose with the idea of replacing it, or I make two takes... one under and one over then I decide which looks best.

Tricky lighting conditions to me also refers to situations when you have no light to have contrast at all... like (shady areas) Those situations I take them more into the under expose range, as the contrast and colors come much better if I correct my exposure in pp.

All in all my exposure will depend a lot on the situation, the picture I want to make, the camera I am shooting with and my subject.

[Zig]

Lifehacker is correct.In terms of digital information, more info is retained in highlights than shadows. There is a studiedly scientific reason for this, but I'm hornswaggled if i can remember what it is. Noise is a different kettle of fish altogether.
On that same subject, Power Retouche does a wonderful little plug-in called PR Dynamic Range Compressor which can be used to equalise highlights and shadows, even giving an HDR-look without the halo artefacts. I used to layer in Photomatix until I came across this and I frequently use it for "rescue" work(!). It's particularly dramatic at restoring arguably "lost" and blocked shadows in contrasty jpegs. There is a trade off in terms of noise but still, a really useful plug: I've not touched Photomatix since I've had this.
Anyone know it?

[NT73]

So is there a great difference between Highlights and Shadows in PS CR, and PR Dynamic R. C. ?