I had a discussion with a friend of mine who is very critical of my photos, especially my landscapes. First, he thought I had difficulty with exposure and I tended to underexpose my shots. Now he has only used film mostly and I use digital. I find that underexposing slightly keeps the images from having blown out highlights, then I work with the raw files in photoshop to bring up the shadows and apparently he thinks my method underexposes the images and therefore they lack detail. Is this not a good strategy to avoid blown highlights? I do use a polarizer and sometimes a 2 stop graduated neutral density filter. Second question, on my wide angle landscapes, if I can I use a tripod and take the photo at between f16-f22 as I found this gives me the best depth of field. He thinks I should try around f5-f11 because according to him it gives better sharpness and detail in the areas that are within the depth of field, and he thought that having a large depth of field made many of my photos appear dull and boring. Basically he things a lower f-stop would make the photos sharper and more interesting. To me this seems counterintuitive and against what I have learned. What are your thoughts on this, who is right?