Proper Settings for an Accurate Histogram.

[thierrylegros396]

Yes "contrast" setting is very important !

But also "saturation" and even "tint" !
Especially if you are shooting yellow or orange flowers !

So what to do ?

Contrast to the minimum and other settings to 0.
You have to test your gear and to learn.
Very quickly you will know if you may slightly "clip" a sky or a flower depending of the situation you encountered.

That's why I like to shoot with a limited number of cameras.

They are not perfect but I know their problems and their qualities.

Have a Nice Day.

Thierry

[JohnCoveney]

I have seen people say that shooting RAW gives more "headroom" (increased dynamic range as I understand this) over JPEGs. If I follow this advice to reduce the Picture Styles contrast setting to 0 on my Canon 40D, do I need to be more careful about not blowing any highlights on the camera's LCD? If the highlights are in a less important part of the shot, I sometimes let them run a little off the right hand side of my histogram, knowing that I can recover them in Lightroom.

Thanks, John C

[Panopeeper]

I'm not sure if a third thread within two weeks is necessary for this topic:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=37853
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=38020

UPDATE:
Sorry, I have just noticed, that this thread is older than one of those I liked to above.

[digitaldog]

I have seen people say that shooting RAW gives more "headroom" (increased dynamic range as I understand this) over JPEGs.

It provides the potential for more headroom because you control the rendering. The JEPG is a baked rendering you can’t control. So no, the camera has a fixed dynamic range, based on exposure and the like, you will likely find you have the ability to fully control it via a proper Raw rendering, while the JPEG is what it is.

As for “accurate” histogram and preview, well the settings might be closer, but they can still be a mile off considering again, these are all based on the JPEG rendering, not the pre-rendered Raw data. Its hardly the solution we need from the manufacturers which is, don’t show us JPEG rendering, provide the linear Histogram of the Raw.

[Ray]

Did I tell you the story of an experience I had in the Thai island of Koh Samui a few years ago? I was shooting with my 20D because my 5D was in for repair, in Bangkok.

I had the contrast, saturation and sharpness set to a minimum and had taken lots of shots of the island and its nightlife. One night as I was walking back to my hotel, a Scandinavian tourist, noticing my magnificent camera around my neck, asked me to show him some shots, which I obligingly did.

The 20D LCD screen is small. The reduced contrast and saturation made the images pale and uninspiring. The guy looked at the images for a while, then produced his mobile phone with large LCD screen and proceeded to show me images he'd taken, which looked much sharper and more vibrant   .

[Udo007]

In the article Settings for an Accurate Histogram by Ray Maxwell, Michael added an addendum. Michael recommends that for a realistic histogram on the camera LCD, we also have to watch
1. White Balance
2. Contrast
3. Saturation
4. Tint.

I agree that these settings will influence the in-camera histogram, and hence the ETTR setting, but I am unsure of what are the best in-camera JPG setting when considering a given style of post edit.

For example, in post I usually set the Saturation, more precisely Vibrance in ACR 5.5, to a high value, say 70-80.
Should I set the in-camera saturation to minimum, normal, or high?
Minimum, because the histogramme will best reflect any clipping in the RAW image, and allow maximum ETTR?
Maximum, because I usually use a high vibrance setting in post?
Normal, because Vibrance in ACR 5.5 uses an algorithm, which reduces the probability of channel clipping?

I have a similar question in respect to the in-camera white-balance setting. Should I set the in-camera white-balance to UniWB or auto-white-balance?
UniWB because the histogramme will best reflect any clipping in the RAW image, and allow maximum ETTR?
Auto-white-balance because in post I will adjust the white balance close to what it would have been, had I set the camera to auto-white-balance?

Or, put another way, when I adjust the white balance in a RAW image, which was exposed all the way to the right using UniWB, might I run into clipping? I probably can fix by the post edit clipping by reducing the exposure setting in ACR, but in doing so, I will negate the benefit of using UniWB exposure.

[stamper]

Quote

Or, put another way, when I adjust the white balance in a RAW image, which was exposed all the way to the right using UniWB, might I run into clipping? I probably can fix by the post edit clipping by reducing the exposure setting in ACR, but in doing so, I will negate the benefit of using UniWB exposure.

Unquote

IMHO you won't negate the benefit because what you did falls within the parameters of the converter which is the goal as others have pointed out. It isn't an exact science and it is impossible to get every exposure "correct" UniWB isn't actually a white balance. It replaces the white balance in camera and you choose the white balance in the converter. I have been using the UniWB a lot recently and IMHO it is a valid method of exposing but I wouldn't use it all of the time. I find it useful when taking high contrast landscape images when I spot meter for the sky and add EV . This method lightens the foreground more than the normal method without overexposing the highlights.

[Hoang]

Or, put another way, when I adjust the white balance in a RAW image, which was exposed all the way to the right using UniWB, might I run into clipping? I probably can fix by the post edit clipping by reducing the exposure setting in ACR, but in doing so, I will negate the benefit of using UniWB exposure.

No you won't, as you have captured the maximum DR of your camera by exposing to the right. By adjusting exposure in ACR, you are only remapping the values. You shoot for maximizing DR in RAW, then edit for "look"