Over-exposed or under-exposed?

Oriel

Folks,
In film photography, if the image is darker than it should be, it is because the film was overexposed, meaning it was exposed to light for longer than it ideally should have been.
In digitial photography, if the image is darker than it should be, it is under-exposed because the sensor wasn't exposed to light for as long as it should have been.

Do you see this as being a clear-cut difference between the two formats?
If you have an image which is too dark, so you say it is under-exposed or over-exposed? Does it change depending on what format you're using?

S.

Alun

Well, mostly you don't look at film negatives, but the resulting print, so in both formats the end result is the same. Dark negative -> light print, and light negative -> dark print.

elven

Remember film photography includes slides too, which are too light if overexposed. As Alun says, it's the final print that you look at not the negs... so there's no difference, really.

Zillah

Yup, as said, the light/dark gets inverted once its printed from neg to paper, so an "underexposed" shot is one whos final image is too dark and visa versa, with any medium.