Exposure is not how dark or how light an image looks!

What I was saying is weird was your attributing the meaning that you did to your construction in this phrase: "Density increases with exposure". Not the fact that we have reversal and negative films.

No argument here. It's always a balancing act to achieve the desired result or to make the compromises which best represent your intent.

Thanks. I already clarified my intention in an earlier post above: "The implication which was intended is that exposure density is directly related to the amount received (how much or how little) by any type of film."

If you could have used a slower shutter speed and/or wider aperture and still met your dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights, then yes, it is under exposed*. Otherwise no.

To maximise the quality of the raw data, at least with regard to minimising visible noise, you need to get as much light as possible onto the sensor while the shutter is open within your dof and blur constraints without clipping important highlights.

* exposure - amount of light striking the sensor per unit area while the shutter is open.

Shot as base ISO to maximize DR, with highlights recorded just below clipping (-4EV, resulting in ISO 200 instead of ISO 3200 with no exposure compromise).

Yes.

I would have left the iso at 3200 and set the final image lightness in post.
For many cameras raising iso for a given exposure* reduces read noise.

By lowering the iso you probably increased the read noise.

It depends on which is more important, read noise or dynamic range.

ISO 3200 would have nuked the highlights (4 stops beyond clipping). This was an extreme scene with ridiculous dynamic range. This was as much a technical ISO invariance exercise as a an attempt to take decent shot. The highlights where recorded just below clipping at base ISO

.Yes, but just a bit,

In this case there was no choice, any increase in ISO would have necessitated a reduction in sensor exposure (which would be worse).

I must say, the old DPR forums were more intuitive to use than here. This will take some getting used to.

This is not true for film, where an examination of the developed film will show whether it was exposed correctly for the development process used.

As noted above, with slide film that uses standardized processing (i.e. E-6), exposure does determine image lightness. However, with some slide films it may be desirable to overexpose the film slightly to get more pleasing colors (lightness).

A vacuum leak in the brake booster will result in the brake pedal causing the engine to accelerate. Ask me how I know.

Ok, it wasn't clear to me if iso 3200 was actually set or not. I assumed it was.

I have never used film so I wouldn't know.

From your reply I assume you agree what I posted is true for digital.

I'm glad you're still around to relate that to us!

I generally shoot with Auto-ISO with exposure compensation, had I not dialed it way back, the ISO would have been at 3200 and the highlights would be toast.

I also prefer Auto ISO as described in my "Why are my photos noisy?" thread on this forum.

Anyway, earlier you asked if your posted raw file was under exposed.

I replied under what circumstances I would see it as under exposed* or not.

* exposure - amount of light striking the sensor per unit area while the shutter is open.

For the same processing, I expose differently for optical print and for scanning. The factor here is what I'm going to do with the film.

Probably best to specify then, since film photography remains popular (and at the rate digital camera sales are going, might become the dominant form of photography again).

I can't decide, and having always thought DPR's stuck record rule was a good one, I'm not inclined to argue. There are others who will do that anyway.

I do agree that some photographers (perhaps many photographers) use over- and under-exposure in a way that is outdated (and wasn't necessarily true in the film days). I don't think it's useful to jump all over people (especially in a beginners forum) when they use those terms in place of lightness. Many photographers shoot jpg, and do indeed use jpg as their primary lightness control. This has its compromises on image quality but on a sunny day it makes little difference in apparent picture quality (and by apparent I mean what you see without getting down to the pixel level).

Educate them, yes. Pounce on them DPR-style with WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK EXPOSURE MEANS???, no.

As I see it, exposure in digital is a more nebulous concept, and optimal exposure is almost impossible to define, at least without resorting to a large number of variables that make it nearly meaningless anyway. With film, the answer to "What is the optimum exposure for this scene?" has a very narrow range of answers. Under the same circumstances with digital, the true answer is "It depends".

I do think the concept of "nailing the exposure" doesn't have the importance in digital photography than it did in film photography. That is the beauty of digital, you can have a way-less-than-optimal exposure and still get a very usable image. The gap with film is much narrower. Part of the reason I prefer it.

What if you're going to do both?

I am assuming the D in DPRevived stands for Digital so there is no need for me to specify unless i specifically refer to film.

If what you predict eventuates then perhaps this site's domain name could be changed to FPRevived.com :-)

For me the definition of exposure is very clear and simple. Exposure is the amount of light striking the sensor per unit area while the shutter is open.

For me that is simple and clear as well but everyone will have a different definition for optimal exposure according to their needs and goals.
For me, optimal exposure is the maximum exposure (as defined above) within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.