"The proper exposure"

in the 70s Pentax used the word "exposition" because other variables (light , film speed) were used to set the cameras exposure.

The customers are interested in compliance with FADGI / Metamorfoze:
www.digitizationguidelines.gov/guidelines/FADGI%20Technical%20Guidelines%20for%20Digitizing%20Cultural%20Heritage%20Materials_3rd%20Edition_05092023.pdf
www.metamorfoze.nl/sites/default/files/documents/Metamorfoze_Preservation_Imaging_Guidelines_1.0.pdf

I'm not arguing against any of that. You're free to do whatever you like in the creation of your images, follow along with the crowd, and follow all the rules. However, (my own personal opinion here) this tends to produce the most technically correct, yet boring images. To me. So much so, that I nearly throw up when I see yet. another HDR, long exposure sunrise or sunset seascape, for example. I don't shoot to please others, I do it for my own enjoyment. Highlight and shadow clipping be damned. The best thing I ever did for my own photography enjoyment, was turn off the highlight and shadow warnings in whatever raw converter I use. Sure, the technicians will squeal about lost detail and information, excess noise or whatever rocks their own boat, but I'd rather what pleases my eye. Not the rule book

Why the technicians will squeal? They will just print whatever you submitted and take your money.

Maintaining technically correct or pleasing - but one can do both.

I was referring to the interwebz forum technicians.

awesome thanks for the link. Quotes: “Reasonable Reproduction” without enhancement. or even "Faithfull Reproduction"

you must have a lot of fun shooting this genre.

Ah. You are probably a bit irritated and referring to something that doesn't exist.
Technicians know their trade. When they say something we better listen.

Yes, based on accepted criteria and metric.

everyone should read the second link you posted. awesome information. Not going to quote any of it. let everyone interested
in this topic bring there knowledge up to speed and then sit back with the popcorn 😁
this link needs its own thread started 😎
www.metamorfoze.nl/sites/default/files/documents/Metamorfoze_Preservation_Imaging_Guidelines_1.0.pdf

Not irritated, more amused.

Some examples. I was out riding my mountain bike, and snapped these. I like them. Posted on a forum, and all the technicians could do was grizzle about the blown highlights.

Look at the crushed up blacks and lack of shadow detail in these.

How about the excessive motion blur displayed here?

That's abysmal photography according to the technicians

I don't understand whom are you referring to.

All the self appointed interwebz forum technicians that delight in pointing out all the technical deficiencies inherent in the work of the uneducated

Without knowing what are their comments, I can't have an opinion.
In my experience very few take any delight in pointing out deficiencies. Mostly, deficiencies are pointed out in an attempt to help.

You keep telling yourself that :)

I see that you disagree. Well, matter of attitude, maybe.

Absolutely. On both sides of the fence

I don't consider "closest representation" to be synonymous with "replicate." The act of replicating something is closer to reproducing it. A representation of something can be intentionally and obviously different from the thing being represented.

Exposure is light intensity of the scene at the sensor. It's objectively determinable and measurable. A close representation is inherently subjective which makes the phrase, "closest representation," not synonymous with exposure...proper or otherwise.

I like the echoes of the receding geometry in the first photo. I also like the subject's positioning in the last and the shutter dragging while panning to call attention to the subject's movement.