Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Frans Waterlander on January 04, 2020, 08:44:32 pm
-
As far as I know, there are no cameras available with in-camera RAW histograms. So why is that? How difficult could it be to write the code? After all, code has been created for demosaicing the RAW data and creating jpeg histograms. Why only jpeg? Isn't RAW way more important for the more serious photographer? How fast asleep are the camera manufacturers? I don't get it; do you?
-
As far as I know, there are no cameras available with in-camera RAW histograms.
Nope.
How difficult could it be to write the code?
How much coding do you understand? It wasn't difficult for these guys: https://magiclantern.fm (https://magiclantern.fm) and that goes back to the nope statement above, if you own the cameras supported.
Isn't RAW way more important for the more serious photographer?
How serious a photographer are you? ;D Own Rawdigger (https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/rawdigger-histograms-what-is-the-raw-histogram)?
-
Some of us optimally exposed transparency film, without a Histogram of course, often as paid professionals (that's how serious our photography was), within a 1/4 of a stop or better. It's kind of interesting that the youngster's who've only known digital capture find the need to use Histograms to expose but yeah, since most digital cameras that capture raw provide a Histogram, it be nice if they didn't lie and actually showed us the raw Histogram. But is it necessary? No more than it was when some of us professionally, seriously photographed on transparency film, a media that's far, far less forgiving than a digital capture.
Food for thought.... ;)
-
In the film era it was common to use spot and/or incident meters & shoot Polaroid proofs. It was also common to do exposure bracketing especially for transparency film. If histograms were available then, I’m sure that many professional photographers would have used them.
Back to the OP, i don’t think it is difficult to code a raw histogram, but it would probably confuse the majority of casual users. Also, as sensors get better and the industry shifts to EVFs, the need for a raw histogram in camera is diminished
-
In the film era it was common to use spot and/or incident meters & shoot Polaroid proofs. It was also common to do exposure bracketing especially for transparency film.
And in the digital era, we can and still do use spot and incident meters, and the LCD is even better than a Polaroid. As for bracketing, no, never for shooting people. Never for shooting sports or anything that wasn't say a studio setup (and why not?). Snip tests yes. A12 backs dedicated for one test shot per setup, yes. And again, nailing exposure without a Histogram.
-
Again that condescending tone, Andrew. It gets really, really old.
At least you agree that there are no cameras that come from the supplier with RAW histograms.
The question remains why camera manufacturers don't supply that function. If Magic Lantern can do it, then Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. certainly can do it, but they don't. Why? I think it would be a great tool and selling point for a lot of people. Of course, serious professionals like you, Andrew, don't need it.
-
Maybe it is because the makers believe "serious professionals" and even "serious enthusiasts" constitute an insignificant market share. So until one sees a profit-producing reason to break the ice, what incentive do the others have? It would be interesting to see figures about the percentage of camera-users who shoot jpg only. Who regard the Raw option in the menu as incomprehensible and frightening or a useless waste of time and mental resources. Perhaps an indicator is the number of "experienced Raw shooters" and self-declared gurus one sees on various forums, who also admit to always shooting Raw + jpg, "just in case I screw the Raw up", when in fact the opposite mindset would be more appropriate.
-
I never shoot Jpg and never have. Personally have zero interest in a raw histogram. Modern cameras have huge dynamic range and really good metering systems. It’s pretty hard to screw it up actually. If I have time to play with histograms I probably have time to bracket if I really need it. I can also set to picture effect on on my mirrorless camera.
If I’m shooting in studio I’m tethered to a computer running C1 with a calibrated monitor. If I manage to screw that up I don’t think the lack of an in camera raw histogram is my biggest problem.
-
I never shoot Jpg and never have. Personally have zero interest in a raw histogram. Modern cameras have huge dynamic range and really good metering systems. It’s pretty hard to screw it up actually. If I have time to play with histograms I probably have time to bracket if I really need it. I can also set to picture effect on on my mirrorless camera.
If I’m shooting in studio I’m tethered to a computer running C1 with a calibrated monitor. If I manage to screw that up I don’t think the lack of an in camera raw histogram is my biggest problem.
Yeah, I never shoot anything but RAW either. What's the point? Coming from film, I believe in getting the best digital "negative or tranny" that I possibly can. As a Nikon user, I settled on Matrix metering right from the start, and found it so reliable that I only go off auto ISO when it's a case of serious backlighting, when the rear screen is very helpful in advising when I have it best, and the only times I chimp - or even think about doing it. I still have a Minolta Flash Meter 111, but I wonder if it still works after all this time doing nothing?
I had a Polaroid back, but almost never used it.
As a P.S.
On chimping for anything but exposure tests: for myself, I see no advantage at all, because the way the image looks as it comes out of the camera has very little to do with the way it's going to look when I have finished messing about with it and trying to get it to reveal something of what I think I see in the shot. To my surprise and glee. I sometimes discover something on the monitor that I had failed to see at the time of shooting.
On the very rare occasions, post-retirement, that I have shot with people, I hate it when they ask to have a look at the back of the camera. They might as well be asking to have a look at the negatives. They will be disappointed. I rather they be happy.
-
I also have never shot a jpg in my life, use matrix metering and find it to be generally very good.
The advantage with mirrorless is that we see what the sensor sees and therefore see the exposure before capture.
-
To those who say they never shoot JPEGs, your Raw file's thumbnail is a JPEG... ::)
But I agree with Rob, it won't look much like the finished image in most cases.
And to those who can remember shooting film, I would have loved a histogram based exposure when I shot 4x5inch (Agfachrome and E6) transparencies... Incident light meters additionally required to know the lighting contrast, and spot meters could not always meter how much of the specular highlights would shift in color, assuming one could have consistent filmprocessing (not all labs achieved good enough process control).
But I'm digressing. Yeah, it would be a useful feature to have raw-based histograms or better yet, exposure control.
Raw histograms as such are not too helpful without a Gamma adjustment (otherwise most histogram data would usually be in the lower bins, and very little in the higher bins), but clipping indicators could be very useful in nailing the optimal exposure, e.g. in letting the specular highlights clip (or not, depending on whether their color needs to be retained).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Again that condescending tone, Andrew. It gets really, really old.
“If my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions.”
― Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
Or questions when you refuse to accept the answers that don't fit your predetermined desires.
At least you agree that there are no cameras that come from the supplier with RAW histograms.
Was that the question, NO. There are cameras with available in-camera raw Histograms.
If Magic Lantern can do it, then Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. certainly can do it, but they don't. Why?
Simple and correct answer you'll never accept: They choose not to. Now go ask each manufacturer yourself, then come back with their answers if you're really serious about this question and really serious about an answer from the source.
Of course, serious professionals like you, Andrew, don't need it.
That is correct and I explained why. That doesn't mean I'd not like to see one offered. I'd like to see a camera I can afford with a DR that equally matches a human; I'm not holding my breath.
Now that the question has been answered, here's a new one: where can we see examples of your 'serious photography'? ;)
-
As far as I know, there are no cameras available with in-camera RAW histograms. So why is that? How difficult could it be to write the code? After all, code has been created for demosaicing the RAW data and creating jpeg histograms. Why only jpeg? Isn't RAW way more important for the more serious photographer? How fast asleep are the camera manufacturers? I don't get it; do you?
histograms (raw or not raw) are quite useless - if you want to see where the clipping (in raw channels) is in your frame is use properly tuned (UniWB + other settings) blinkies/zebra
-
“If my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions.”
― Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
Or questions when you refuse to accept the answers that don't fit your predetermined desires. Was that the question, NO. There are cameras with available in-camera raw Histograms. Simple and correct answer you'll never accept: They choose not to. Now go ask each manufacturer yourself, then come back with their answers if you're really serious about this question and really serious about an answer from the source. That is correct and I explained why. That doesn't mean I'd not like to see one offered. I'd like to see a camera I can afford with a DR that equally matches a human; I'm not holding my breath.
Now that the question has been answered, here's a new one: where can we see examples of your 'serious photography'? ;)
Snappy come-backs only make your condescending attitude that more obvious. People would respect you more and would value your advise more if you dropped the annoying attitude, but I'm not holding my breathe.
-
Snappy come-backs only make your condescending attitude that more obvious. People would respect you more and would value your advise more if you dropped the annoying attitude, but I'm not holding my breathe.
I'm not at all interested in respect; it's earned by knowledge, by actions, by doing. I don't care about your idea of my attitude or the value of my posts as we've been though too many such experiences where you ask a question and ignore the answers. Do you want me to paste that paper trail here (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=133078.msg1141533#msg1141533) again?
You came here asking a question of members who, as far as I know, not a single one either works directly for a major camera manufacture or those of us who are beta's for these companies can speak outside our NDA's so you are asking a question that you should be asking to the actual manufacturers. See how far that gets you....
So the only answers you'll get are either based solely on opinions lacking in direct facts from the manufacturers or answers you will dismiss. Why ask? Just tell us the answer you wish to hear and maybe someone will tell you what you want to hear. One answer you got and it appears can't accept is, they don't offer a raw histogram because they choose not to provide a raw histogram. I know that probably either doesn't make sense to you or it isn't the answer you wish to hear. Would you be happy hearing that they don't because they all conspire to make photographers think a JPEG histogram is better than a raw Histogram? Or that every time a bell rings, or a photographer views a JPEG Histogram, an angel gets it's wings? Just tell us what you wish to hear, then you'll hear an answer that makes you happy.
Meanwhile, other's have told you how to get by without a raw Histogram, some have told you (and I agree), it's not useful nor necessary. Are you having problems learning to properly expose your raw data? If so ask; some here can teach you about this fundamental part of the science of Photography.
Now that the question has been answered, here's a new one you apparently don't wish to answer: where can we see examples of your 'serious photography'? ;)
-
I would be curious about how much more accurate a raw histogram would be from the jpeg histogram we currently see. Although LCDs have increased in pixel resolution, given the typically small size of histograms, would the difference be significant enough to determine more accurate exposure? Would, for example, channel highlights be within, say, 1 stop? ½ stop? ⅓ stop? Remembering back to my Pentax Digital Spotmeter, wasn’t it in ⅓-stop intervals?
Also, would the additional processing power required to produce a RAW histogram as instantly as we have come to expect take away from the speed at which RAW files are written?
Maybe engineers have made a trade-off: jpeg histograms are within allowable tolerances for determining exposure without slowing write speeds? I’m not a techie, so I have no idea, but in the absence of any other theories . . .
-
I'm not at all interested in respect; it's earned by knowledge, by actions, by doing.
Yes, some people definitely have a deficiency in the respect area, failing to understand it's an asset and self-fulfillment issue, and as a result fail to treat others with respect as well.
-
Yes, some people definitely have a deficiency in the respect area, failing to understand it's an asset and self-fulfillment issue, and as a result fail to treat others with respect as well.
Respect has to be earned; earn it.
Franz, I know a little of your background (and nothing of your abilities or lack thereof as a photographer) so to answer your question as you'll happily accept it; the reason there are no cameras that have a raw Histogram directly from manufacturers is because Obama placed a sanction on the generation of raw Histograms. Evil right?
Happy now? :P
-
I would be curious about how much more accurate a raw histogram would be from the jpeg histogram we currently see.
Download a demo of RawDigger; you'll know based on your camera and based on how you expose for the raw data vs. the JPEG data.
-
I would be curious about how much more accurate a raw histogram would be from the jpeg histogram we currently see.
Well, they're both accurate―in the sense that the JPEG histogram represents the distribution of the in-camera-processed JPEG and the raw histogram represents the distribution of light reaching the sensor. But I presume your question is how different they are. Typically quite a lot. Attached: (1) a JPEG extracted from a raw file produced by a Fuji X-T3, (2) the histogram of the JPEG, (3) the histogram of the raw image data.
-
The subject/debate is not new. It has been around for years. Did you perhaps miss here (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=124450.msg1040344;topicseen#msg1040344)?
-
Respect has to be earned.
Yes, agreed.
-
The subject/debate is not new. It has been around for years. Did you perhaps miss here (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=124450.msg1040344;topicseen#msg1040344)?
I remember that. Sad to see that no progress has been made.
-
Respect has to be earned; earn it.
Franz, I know a little of your background (and nothing of your abilities or lack thereof as a photographer) so to answer your question as you'll happily accept it; the reason there are no cameras that have a raw Histogram directly from manufacturers is because Obama placed a sanction on the generation of raw Histograms. Evil right?
Happy now? :P
Respect takes a long time to be earned...yet can be lost in a blink of the eye...just saying...
-
What exactly is one trying to determine by looking at a histogram on their EVF or LCD? I find blinkies tell me much more than a histogram.
-
What exactly is one trying to determine by looking at a histogram on their EVF or LCD? I find blinkies tell me much more than a histogram.
Both have pros and cons.
-
What exactly is one trying to determine by looking at a histogram on their EVF or LCD? I find blinkies tell me much more than a histogram.
Everything you thought you wanted to know about Histograms
Another exhaustive 40 minute video examining:
What are histograms. In Photoshop, ACR, Lightroom.
Histograms: clipping color and tones, color spaces and color gamut.
Histogram and Photoshop’s Level’s command.
Histograms don’t tell us our images are good (examples).
Misconceptions about histograms. How they lie.
Histograms and Expose To The Right (ETTR).
Are histograms useful and if so, how?
Low rez (YouTube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjPsP4HhHhE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjPsP4HhHhE)
High rez: http://digitaldog.net/files/Histogram_Video.mov (http://digitaldog.net/files/Histogram_Video.mov)
-
Everything you thought you wanted to know about Histograms
Another exhaustive 40 minute video examining:
What are histograms. In Photoshop, ACR, Lightroom.
Histograms: clipping color and tones, color spaces and color gamut.
Histogram and Photoshop’s Level’s command.
Histograms don’t tell us our images are good (examples).
Misconceptions about histograms. How they lie.
Histograms and Expose To The Right (ETTR).
Are histograms useful and if so, how?
Low rez (YouTube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjPsP4HhHhE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjPsP4HhHhE)
High rez: http://digitaldog.net/files/Histogram_Video.mov (http://digitaldog.net/files/Histogram_Video.mov)
I know what they are...but what exactly are you trying to determine from the histogram on the camera's LCD? Everything you listed never answered this question.
-
Both have pros and cons.
What are they?
-
I know what they are...but what exactly are you trying to determine from the histogram on the camera's LCD? Everything you listed never answered this question.
The answer to your questions exist in the video you haven't viewed. ;) ;)
-
What are they?
IF you're shooting raw, there's only cons; the Histogram (and your "blinkies") are just lies.
-
What are they?
I wouldn't go as far as Andrew in calling the jpeg histogram and blinkies lies if shooting RAW, but they are not very reliable indicators for RAW shots since they both are derived from jpeg conversions of the RAW file. Within some margin of error they are however all you got. Totally useless (lies to use Andrew's language)? No. Very reliable? No.
The histogram gives you some idea of how close you are to overexposing without absolute certainty; the blinkies do more or less the same, albeit less reliably since it may be hard to see the onset of potential overexposure in limited areas of the subject, particularly in bright ambient conditions.
-
I wouldn't go as far as Andrew in calling the jpeg histogram and blinkies lies if shooting RAW, but they are not very reliable indicators for RAW shots since they both are derived from jpeg conversions of the RAW file. Within some margin of error they are however all you got. Totally useless (lies to use Andrew's language)? No. Very reliable? No.
The histogram gives you some idea of how close you are to overexposing without absolute certainty; the blinkies do more or less the same, albeit less reliably since it may be hard to see the onset of potential overexposure in limited areas of the subject, particularly in bright ambient conditions.
True, but one can adjust the jpeg parameters to get as close to raw as possible. Also looking at the histogram you have no idea what part of the scene is overexposed. With blinkies, they give you an idea.
-
What are they?
As you can now see, no pros provided. :o
Those that live on assumptions and speculations may find these inaccurate Histograms a "pro" but as I outlined in the video the lies they tell about the actual raw data are only a con. ;)
-
True, but one can adjust the jpeg parameters to get as close to raw as possible. Also looking at the histogram you have no idea what part of the scene is overexposed. With blinkies, they give you an idea.
The blinkies are just as inaccurate as they, like the Histogram are based on the JPEG not the raw. You don't need either lie to optimally expose and avoid clipping. Just like film.
-
The blinkies are just as inaccurate as they, like the Histogram are based on the JPEG not the raw. You don't need either lie to optimally expose and avoid clipping. Just like film.
True...but at least the blinkies point out where a potential problem might be. You can then adjust your exposure or just accept the areas the blinkies feel might be overexposed. With the histogram it just says something might be overexposed...but you must then guess what parts of the scene might be overexposed.
I actually use both histogram and blinkies and don't have issues with exposures.
-
True, but one can adjust the jpeg parameters to get as close to raw as possible. Also looking at the histogram you have no idea what part of the scene is overexposed. With blinkies, they give you an idea.
If you're super-committed to getting the in-camera histo (and the blinkies, since they both come from the same internal image) close to the raw histo, you can use color compensating filters in front of the taking lens. The right filter depends on the lighting and the camera, though, and dialing it in takes some considerable effort. A CC30M is a good place to start for D55 lighting.
Jim
-
True...but at least the blinkies point out where a potential problem might be.
Maybe yes, maybe no. There can be blinkies and zero clipping on the actual raw data. So now what? The best approach IMHO is to test your sensor and metering. Which is exactly how we dealt with transparency film (exposure plus development where development for digital will be in the raw converter you use):
- Bracket a test setup with good targets for white (I used the BableColor Tile but there are others).
- Examine the raw Histograms with RawDigger.
- Examine the On Camera LCD IF (big if) you really feel the need to use it for this task.
- Correlate exposure recommendations with what results in the raw data. That may mean using exposure compensation settings on the camera.
- Strive to NEVER clip highlights you don't wish to clip; that is true over exposure.
- Examine in the raw converter the settings to 'normalize' the so called ETTR (actually optimal exposure for raw) so when you import or set parametric edits, the image doesn't appear in the converter as over exposed (cause it's not).
Articles on exposing for raw:
http://www.onezone.photos
http://schewephoto.com/ETTR/
https://luminous-landscape.com/the-optimum-digital-exposure/
http://digitaldog.net/files/ExposeForRaw.pdf
https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/mystic-exposure-triangle
https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/red_flowers_photography_to-see-the-real-picture
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/exposure-for-raw-or-for-jpegs
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/calibrate-exposure-meter-to-improve-dynamic-range
-
Maybe yes, maybe no. There can be blinkies and zero clipping on the actual raw data. So now what? The best approach IMHO is to test your sensor and metering. Which is exactly how we dealt with transparency film (exposure plus development where development for digital will be in the raw converter you use):
- Bracket a test setup with good targets for white (I used the BableColor Tile but there are others).
- Examine the raw Histograms with RawDigger.
- Examine the On Camera LCD IF (big if) you really feel the need to use it for this task.
- Correlate exposure recommendations with what results in the raw data. That may mean using exposure compensation settings on the camera.
- Strive to NEVER clip highlights you don't wish to clip; that is true over exposure.
- Examine in the raw converter the settings to 'normalize' the so called ETTR (actually optimal exposure for raw) so when you import or set parametric edits, the image doesn't appear in the converter as over exposed (cause it's not).
Articles on exposing for raw:
http://www.onezone.photos
http://schewephoto.com/ETTR/
https://luminous-landscape.com/the-optimum-digital-exposure/
http://digitaldog.net/files/ExposeForRaw.pdf
https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/mystic-exposure-triangle
https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/red_flowers_photography_to-see-the-real-picture
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/exposure-for-raw-or-for-jpegs
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/calibrate-exposure-meter-to-improve-dynamic-range
One just has to wonder how accurately this process you describe works for different shooting conditions/subjects. Anyway, an in-camera RAW RGB histogram will give you all the data you need right at the time of capture.
-
One just has to wonder how accurately this process you describe works for different shooting conditions/subjects.
Yes, you have to wonder because: If you have only imagined it, you haven't experienced it. Seems from your reply, you've never tried it. Nor it appears have ever shot transparency film ideally if at all (still waiting on proof of serious photography from you too). Don't wonder, get to work and learn how to expose your raw captures, assuming you shoot in raw.
Anyway, an in-camera RAW RGB histogram will give you all the data you need right at the time of capture.
You state that as factual after asking us about how to produce a raw Histogram in the camera so I have to believe, you're simply making more assumptions and speculations without any actual experience.
Do you really think that for the last nearly 200 years, photographers have been so unable to optimally expose any media, as it appears you have, without a raw Histogram? We haven't. ;)
You've got a slew of peer reviewed articles to read about exposing for raw. Get to work, read em, do some actual testing (work), learn how to expose. "We" can't do any more such work for you, the rest is up to you alone!
-
At at 10:02:52 am » I posted no less than 8 articles covering exposing for raw data. At at 10:44:48 am » Franz replies he has to wonder about the accuracy the process described by myself and others can work. He wonders without reading or testing any of the data provided 43 minutes previously. I think this illustrates his posting agenda which isn’t to ask a question and study the answers or end up with an answer to help him but rather to ask a question and then nearly immediately push back on the answers that don't suite his predetermined desires, factual or otherwise. It is why I don't believe anyone else here should take him too seriously assuming they are new to this agenda of posting (I'm not, this is really old news). If I'm coming off as pissy towards Franz, it is simply due to years of witnessing this kind of posting agenda while attempting to provide useful data points for him to ignore but not necessarily other's dragged into his posting agenda.
-
As far as I know, there are no cameras available with in-camera RAW histograms. So why is that? How difficult could it be to write the code? After all, code has been created for demosaicing the RAW data and creating jpeg histograms. Why only jpeg? Isn't RAW way more important for the more serious photographer? How fast asleep are the camera manufacturers? I don't get it; do you?
Phase One IQ4 (https://phaseoneiq4.com/) has a raw histogram (in addition to the standard histogram, a zone-system based heat map, customizable "blinkies", raw-clipping blinkies, and the view on screen).
It's the only still-camera system I'm aware of that really gives an informed photographer the information they need (in the field, at the time of capture, no other hardware required) to properly expose a digital image, provided the photographer wants to ETTR.
-
Phase One IQ4 (https://phaseoneiq4.com/) has a raw histogram (in addition to the standard histogram, a zone-system based heat map, customizable "blinkies", raw-clipping blinkies, and the view on screen).
Hopefully such facts will make Franz happy. But I'm not holding by breath on that.... ;D
It's the only still-camera system I'm aware of that really gives an informed photographer the information they need (in the field, at the time of capture, no other hardware required) to properly expose a digital image, provided the photographer wants to ETTR.
Well it's excellent you provide this feature but it's kind of a stretch to suggest (if you're just suggesting) that to properly exposure a digital image, you MUST have such a Histogram.
-
Hopefully such facts will make Franz happy. But I'm not holding by breath on that.... ;D Well it's excellent you provide this feature but it's kind of a stretch to suggest (if you're just suggesting) that to properly exposure a digital image, you MUST have such a Histogram.
Should I be worried that my cameras don't have RAW histograms? What I have seems to work pretty well.
-
Should I be worried that my cameras don't have RAW histograms? What I have seems to work pretty well.
You should be super worried if you subscribe to FUD and the concept that you have to have a raw Histogram to ideally expose your data. So IOW, no, you have nothing to worry about if you've taken the time the OP clearly hasn't; to test your captures and exposure with a fine and useful product like RawDigger. Or you have experience exposing media that's far less forgiving, transparency film, again a job done without any need for any kind of Histogram.
-
Andrew, your quote of my post truncated out the ending.
The full quote is "It's the only still-camera system I'm aware of that really gives an informed photographer the information they need (in the field, at the time of capture, no other hardware required) to properly expose a digital image, provided the photographer wants to ETTR."
A raw histogram is not necessary to making a great image.
A precise and fine-tuned ETTR exposure is not necessary to making a great image.
However, if you want to carefully (read: precisely) ETTR (without having to tether) then the Phase One IQ4 is the only camera that provides you the tools to do so in-camera. And it does so simply and elegantly.
This is especially true given that the Phase One IQ4 toolset offers a Raw Clipping indicator that only indicates area where two raw channels are past saturation, given that modern raw processors like Capture One can do a darn good job rendering pleasantly in areas of an image that have one (but only one) color channel blown.
That seemed salient to the thread that starts with (paraphrasing) "why does no camera offer raw histograms?"
-
I absolutely was not attributing your post as FUD and apologize if you thought that comment was directed at you rather than someone else posting here. As I said, I applaud your company for providing this functionality in your camera. I believe I’ve been quite clear in my opinion that a raw histogram or any Histogram is not necessary for optimal exposure. But nonetheless having such functionality for some is useful and again I applaud your company for providing it
-
Yes, you have to wonder because: If you have only imagined it, you haven't experienced it. Seems from your reply, you've never tried it. Nor it appears have ever shot transparency film ideally if at all (still waiting on proof of serious photography from you too). Don't wonder, get to work and learn how to expose your raw captures, assuming you shoot in raw. You state that as factual after asking us about how to produce a raw Histogram in the camera so I have to believe, you're simply making more assumptions and speculations without any actual experience.
Do you really think that for the last nearly 200 years, photographers have been so unable to optimally expose any media, as it appears you have, without a raw Histogram? We haven't. ;)
You've got a slew of peer reviewed articles to read about exposing for raw. Get to work, read em, do some actual testing (work), learn how to expose. "We" can't do any more such work for you, the rest is up to you alone!
That question was rhetorical; the process you describe has its limitations and is only reasonably accurate over a limited range of shooting conditions. A simple exercise will show this: use an infrared filter and see the process fall apart. Of course you could use the same process to find exposure correlation for using infrared filters, or other shooting conditions. An in-camera RAW RGB histogram on the other hand will work for any shooting condition right at the time of capture.
The process you describe is the best approach if no in-camera RAW RGB histogram is available, but becomes an unnecessary pain in the neck if such histogram is available in-camera. The $52,000 Phase One camera is a bit out of my - and I guess many other people's - range.
By the way, don't worry about my level of experience. I bought my first (film) camera when I was in middle school in 1958 with money earned from my paper delivery job. Done B/W and color film, B/W chemical darkroom printing, color slides, digital RAW shooting and digital printing.
-
That question was rhetorical...
As we so consistently see from you.
the process you describe has its limitations and is only reasonably accurate over a limited range of shooting conditions.
That's an opinion based on assumptions and a lack of experience. I've pointed out that photographers for a very, very long time have been successful in optimally exposing all nature of media without a Histogram. I fully appreciate you don't have such experience.
The process you describe is the best approach if no in-camera RAW RGB histogram is available
Clearly you've not thought about how many years photographers have been making images with optimal exposures without any Histogram, raw or otherwise. Some here, unlike you, doing so on film which is far less forgiving than digital and getting paid to do so.
The $52,000 Phase One camera is a bit out of my - and I guess many other people's - range.
Yes, I understand the limitations of amateurs. Maybe you should stick to snapshots from a phone.
By the way, don't worry about my level of experience.
I have no such worries, that's another of your assumptions, I believe based on your inability to tell us about your level of experience, provide examples of your 'serious' photography or ability to produce an optimal exposure without some kind of Histogram, your photographic experience is quite limited.
I bought my first (film) camera when I was in middle school in 1958 with money earned from my paper delivery job.
Buying something and being able to understand how use it, to use it, to show other's what use you've provided is a major difference. Some of us didn't earn money from paper delivery, we earned money as professional photographers. So yeah, you know a lot more about paper delivery than I do. ;)
Done B/W and color film, B/W chemical darkroom printing, color slides, digital RAW shooting and digital printing.
Doing perhaps, how well, still highly questionable. One has to wonder if indeed what you say is true, how you find it so difficult to produce an optimally exposed image without a raw Histogram.
-
I believe I’ve been quite clear in my opinion that a raw histogram or any Histogram is not necessary for optimal exposure. But nonetheless having such functionality for some is useful and again I applaud your company for providing it
:)
-
One has to wonder if indeed what you say is true, how you find it so difficult to produce an optimally exposed image without a raw Histogram.
I'll just comment on this one to illustrate how incredibly biased and rude you are. Where did I ever say I find it difficult to produce an optimally exposed image without a RAW histogram? Well? That comment totally misses the point as do your other comments.
Now, go on and feel superior and smug. Enjoy.
-
I'll just comment on this one to illustrate how incredibly biased and rude you are.
I frankly don't care.
I'll just comment that you appear to be incredibly confused about exposure.
Where did I ever say I find it difficult to produce an optimally exposed image without a RAW histogram?
« Reply #39 on: Today at 10:44:48 am (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=133476.msg1146347#msg1146347) »
-
I frankly don't care.
I'll just comment that you appear to be incredibly confused about exposure. « Reply #39 on: Today at 10:44:48 am (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=133476.msg1146347#msg1146347) »
Have a nice day.
-
8)
-
For those interested in using blinkies or zebra patterns for evaluating or setting exposure, here is a much more mature and informative discussion on a method that works.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1383282
-
For those interested in using blinkies or zebra patterns for evaluating or setting exposure, here is a much more mature and informative discussion on a method that works.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1383282 (https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1383282)
Wow, despite first sentence (For those looking for an easy way to expose to the right...), as opposed to simply learning how to optimally expose the raw or JPEG or film or anything else, I have to say this reminds me of an old quote from the late great Bruce Fraser:
"You can do all sorts of things that are fiendishly clever, then fall
in love with them because they're fiendishly clever, while
overlooking the fact that they take a great deal more work to obtain
results that stupid people get in half the time. As someone who has
created a lot of fiendishly clever but ultimately useless techniques
in his day, I'd say this sounds like an example."
Bruce Fraser
-
Wow, despite first sentence (For those looking for an easy way to expose to the right...), as opposed to simply learning how to optimally expose the raw or JPEG or film or anything else, I have to say this reminds me of an old quote from the late great Bruce Fraser:
"You can do all sorts of things that are fiendishly clever, then fall
in love with them because they're fiendishly clever, while
overlooking the fact that they take a great deal more work to obtain
results that stupid people get in half the time. As someone who has
created a lot of fiendishly clever but ultimately useless techniques
in his day, I'd say this sounds like an example."
Bruce Fraser
Ummm...results speak for themselves. Maybe eat a bit of humble pie and take a look at some of the images some of those folk that discuss this method are capable of producing.
Are you always a jack...azz?
-
Ummm...results speak for themselves. Maybe eat a bit of humble pie and take a look at some of the images some of those folk that discuss this method are capable of producing.
I never stated it doesn't work! Pay attention. I said with a quote, from someone who like some here, actually understood how to expose for any media, that your URL is a great deal more work to obtain than using a process that photographers have used for nearly 200 years of photography. IF you want to fall in love with this process, by all means do so.
I fully understand that some here can't use time honored methods to optimally expose their images without some goodie on the back of a camera. I'd hate to think how you'd deal with exposing without that goodie and again, it's absolutely not necessary to produce optimal exposure.
-
I never stated it doesn't work! Pay attention. I said with a quote, from someone who like some here, actually understood how to expose for any media, that your URL is a great deal more work to obtain than using a process that photographers have used for nearly 200 years of photography. IF you want to fall in love with this process, by all means do so.
I fully understand that some here can't use time honored methods to optimally expose their images without some goodie on the back of a camera. I'd hate to think how you'd deal with exposing without that goodie and again, it's absolutely not necessary to produce optimal exposure.
Again I ask please stop being an azz. I've been shooting since the late 60's so I think I know how to expose properly including using spot meters with my 4x5 cameras. With digital, there are more methods at your disposal that work. It's up to everyone to find a method that works for them. With the advanced metering algorithms in today's cameras and the high latitude with exposure in today's sensors along with the many different techniques of using the available features on the cameras...it's never been so easy to nail your exposures.
Dog...don't bother replying as I'm out of this conversation...hate wrestling in the mud.
-
Again I ask please stop being an azz.
"What annoys us about others may say more about ourselves than about them."-C.J. Jung
I've been shooting since the late 60's so I think I know how to expose properly including using spot meters with my 4x5 cameras.
I didn't need blinkies or an LCD to shoot with my Sinar P either. So there you go.
With digital, there are more methods at your disposal that work
Yes there are. No one has said otherwise.
Are you always a jack...azz?
Dog...don't bother replying as I'm out of this conversation...hate wrestling in the mud.
Seems you do like wrestling in the mud and calling other's azz. More than once sir.
Don't let the door hit you on your way out. ;)
-
Enough.
Jeremy