You're using slide film. What kind that you are confident of the exposure with one shot? I presume you have a lightmeter or it's in your head? Do you print in the wet lab or just scan. Also, how do you scan?
Hi Asher: The technical section below my posted image somewhat answer your questions: Provia 100, scanned on Epson V700. I scan using Vuescan (pathetic user interface, but good results) with multi-pass scanning. I do final finishing and output via Apple Aperture.
I have never understood why people bracket their shots (especially when using negative film or digital): Taking a reading with an incident meter gives you a 100% accurate reading, no questions asked. This is usually good enough already, for most scenes. Otherwise, if you purposefully wish to under- or over-expose the scene to benefit some other aspect (such as a bright background) you are in full control as to how much you adjust exposure by. There are 0.0% unknowns in this scenario, and I have always had the feeling (sorry if I offend anybody here) that photographers who bracket shots are very unsure of themselves, or are not doing incident light metering.
For example, this shot here was the same: Potentially tricky lighting, but I took an incident reading, took the (one) shot exactly as per the reading, and it came out 100% as per my expectation. Because incident light meters do not lie, and are not fooled by the colour or intensity of reflective surfaces. Of course, the trick is knowing *which* part of the light to measure, and here I measured by pointing the incident meter away from the camera, in the sunlight, because that usually yields good results for translucent leaves.
(Provia 100, Mamiya RB67, 250mm f/4.5 old single-coated lens at f/4.5)
Lastly, even though slide film has rather poor dynamic range, I find it still handles blown highlights much better than linear digital capture, in that there is still sufficient shoulder to not blow out to a direct white in almost all circumstances - it's a gradual falloff.
