I have read a lot in this forum about the idea of shooting to the right to maximise the dynamic range of the digital sensor. However, having recently moved to the Nikon D80 I have to back off from the cameras tendancy in matrix metering mode to overexpose. Therefore highlight clipping is something I am becoming paranoid about.
There has been a lot of comment about the D80s percieved problem, but my question is about whether or not some highlight clipping is permissible. I often take images with a few spectoral highlights - a white painted widow frame in a street scene or part of the crome bumper of a car, for example - but surely these are part of the reality of the scene and should be allowed to clip?
I get the impression that any clipping is tabo and I should be underexposing more in oder to be able to recover the last pixel of information my sensor can capture - surely not?

First of all, exposure to the right is best used with raw, since you often need to bring the exposure down in the raw converter. You probably shouldn't use ETTR with JPEG.

I use the D200, which has a similar metering system and it does sometimes overexpose when shooting in matrix mode. You really need to watch the histogram and make corrections in exposure when necessary. The D70 tended to underexpose in many situations and there were many complaints about this and I think Nikon was listening to their customers.

If the dynamic range of the scene is greater than what can be captured by the camera (as shown by a histogram with shoulders at both ends), you have to decide whether to sacrifice highlight or shadow detail. If shadows are important, you may have to accept highlight clipping.

If the highlights are only slightly clipped, it is surprising how much highlight detail can be recovered with Adobe Camera Raw, so I wouldn't get too paranoid about minimal highlight clipping. Nikon Capture can also recover highlights.

Bill

Apparently the human eye has a similar latitude or even a bit less to consumer-level digital sensors - about 6 or 7 stops. Yet the world appears to us as though our eyes capture perhaps twice that much latitude. Obviously we're dealing with some pretty nifty image processing inside our overgrown crania. But for all that evolutionary magic, specular highlights remain blown even to human vision. Specular highlights put the twinkle on the chrome trim of a new car and the dance upon the face of the water in a luxury pool shot. That's what our eyes show us and that's what slick advertising shots show us, so I don't think you need to attempt the impossible.

Now when it comes to white paint - well that's more of an ... ahem ... grey area, but I think the same principle applies: if it's blown to your own vision as you take the shot, feel free to let it blow in your shot too. That glare is a cue to the contrasty nature of the original scene. An exception would be whether the details of that white painted window frame are an important element in your shot. For example: if you're doing an ad shot to sell a house, then getting the detail might outweigh getting the mood. Yet as Bill Janes rightly points out, it may not be practical to come back on an overcast day, so you may either have to choose your poison - blown highlights vs. blown shadows - or bracket then do exposure blending. Incidentally, another common example of whiteness that I keep running up against is white flowers, such as daisies.

If the D80's matrix metering doesn't cut it in contrasty light, don't forget you have the same in-camera 2.5 degree "spot" metering that Nikon has offered for many years. While not 1 degree, it should suffice to nail the exposure in most situations. And of course you can just review the shot and check the JPEG-based blinking highlight warning if you have the luxury of a bit of time before the next shot. Or you could get really serious and spring for Sekonic's new L-758 DR hand held. ;)

I have a lecturer who is obsessed with not having blown highlights, If there were any in my pics (esp. black and white) then i had to burn them in until they turned light gray. I don't feel as strongly, if nothing is added to an image by having detail in a certain area (especially if it's not the centre of attention) then what is the problem with it being pure white?

A bright white area supposedly attracts the eye first, but if it's a small area away from the main focus then i can't see how it's an issue.

Blown highlights may or may not be acceptable depending on the scene and the impression that the photographer wants to convey. However, exposure is handled differently in B/W negative photography and digital. In B/W you expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. With digital, as in transparency film, you expose for the highlights. You can use the shadow/highlight control in Photoshop to recover shadow detail or you can bracket and merge the photos. Another method is to merge two raw renderings of the image--one for shadows and another for highlights.

Bill

What is wrong with clipped highlights? When is the last time you looked at a natural object (including a lighbulb) and didn't see some detail? No detail in highlights is unatural to the eye. That's why you have detail in the highlights. On the otherhand when you look out of a brightly lighted room into a darkened area, it is not uncommon to see no detail in the shadows. So shadow withut detail is a little more natural.
As has been previously mentioned, you can always bring up a certain amount of shadow detail with image adjustment, however it is impossible to bring back detail that has been lost when the sensor is clipped.

On my D70 I have the review set to flashing highlights If the areas that flash are small and they are on clouds for instance and not on the subject area then I find it acceptable It is a useful mode to judge overexsposure The histogram isn't always reliable

Bobrobert

Thank you all for your well argued points of view on this topic. You have really helped me draw some conclusions. At the end of the day if phtography is art then we must make our own choices and for me a tiny bit of highlight clipping in some images is acceptable when it adds to their overall impact. Obviously the main subject needs to be correctly exposed, but the centre of the odd cloud, parts of the chrome on a bicycle's wheel or a narrow strip of white painted window frame in the backgroud should not be used as the reason for underexposing the rest of the photograph.
I know all the advantages of NEF files, but try to capture my image as a JPEG, bracketing where necessary (most of the time) and I take NEFs as a backup on important shoots. For me, if I can get it right with a camera generated JPEG I am happy; I just don't have time to post process dozens of NEFs.