I hear different explanations and preferences. Exact and balanced exposure is of course always the preferrable, but what is worse when shooting RAW, to overexpose or to underexpose?
Some like to treat RAW as Video, i.e. never overexposing for the fear of blowing out highlights and preferring to underexpose to be able to recover details in shadows.
Others treat RAW as film, i.e. preferring to overexpose as there is supposed to be more information in the highlights compared to shadows, and thus fearing crushed blacks.
Steven Ascher, in his 'The Filmmaker's Handbook' never mentions RAW per se in this instance, but does say that a Log capture should never be underexposed. Ascher often compares RAW to Log so I guess the same goes for RAW, which shouldn't be underexposed.
Intuitively, I see a logic in treating RAW as film, i.e. not to underexpose and to be forgiving in overexposure. RAW behaves as film in many respects, such as responding to light metering (again referred to Ascher).
What is your opinions on this matter, based on your own experience?