Let's consider a matrix $X \in M\left(2, \mathbb{R}\right)$. It's a well-known result that if $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $X$, then $\exp\left(\lambda\right)$ is an eigenvalue of $\exp\left(X \right)$.
But does it hold the other way round? More precisely, my question is as follows: is we know eigenvalues of $\exp\left(X\right)$, then what can we say about eigenvalues of $X$? Does existence of eigenvalues of $\exp\left(X\right)$ even guarantee existence of (real) eigenvalues of $X$?
What's true is that if $\mu$ is an eigenvalue of $\exp(X)$, then there is some eigenvalue $\lambda$ of $X$ such that $\mu = \exp(\lambda)$; equivalently, every eigenvalue of $\exp(X)$ is of the form $\exp(\lambda)$ for some $\lambda$ which is an eigenvalue of $X$, or equivalently again, if $\mu$ is an eigenvalue of $\exp(X)$ then $\log(\mu)$ is an eigenvalue of $X$ for one of the possible values of $\log(\mu)$.
You don't get any control over which of the possible values of $\log(\mu)$ occur, except that if $X$ is real then its non-real eigenvalues must come in complex conjugate pairs. For example, suppose
$$X = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 2 \pi \\ - 2 \pi & 0 \end{array} \right]$$
which has eigenvalues $\pm 2 \pi i$. Then $\exp(X)$ has eigenvalues $\exp(\pm 2 \pi i) = 1$, and in fact I invite you to compute that $\exp(X) = 1$ is just the identity matrix. So $\exp(X)$ having real eigenvalues does not imply that $X$ has real eigenvalues.
Everything I've said generalizes to $n \times n$ matrices (at least).