Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Beginner's Questions => Topic started by: ThomasR99 on February 12, 2015, 10:10:11 pm
-
Hi, all, thanks for stopping by the beginners' area to help with this.
I believe I read somewhere in the past that to get a histogram display that best matches the RAW image capture, saturation, sharpening and/or contrast should be set to levels below 'default' or the middle of the available range on the menu. I can no longer recall when/where I read that, and if others think it's still true or not. For some time I'd set these all 2-3 clicks/marks/notches (however you define it) below middle on the menu bar. Naturally, this made my JPEG's somewhat 'bland' looking, and I needed to do almost as much work to make them presentable for others to see on my Flickr site as I would have if I'd just used the RAW image. I do use an ETTR method so they tend to be a bit washed-out as well.
So, the questions are, how do you set your camera for JPEG preview (and the displayed histogram) in order to assist you in optimizing the RAW capture?
I mostly shoot in 'neutral' and 'monochrome' picture styles. And as long as I"m able to, I will continue to post-process in Aperture.
Thanks for your time. Links to articles discussing this for me (and others) to review are welcome as well.
-
The main issue is tone and tonal levels.
Choose a Picture Style that does not alter contrast - like 'Faithful'.
This gives the best approximation on what the raw histogram will look like.
Tony Jay
-
The best advise for a beginner is to tape over the back screen and ever worry about. Just kidding, but there is far to much looking at the back screen and overthinking it. Everything you need is in the viewfinder. As long as the raw file is in range then you are good. Faithful is what I use also. Never use monochrome if you ever shoot video, as the video will be monochrome permanently.
-
Each camera is different but by and large, just ignore the histogram on the camera when shooting raw. It's mostly a lie.
Links to articles discussing this for me (and others) to review are welcome as well.
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
High rez: http://digitaldog.net/files/Histogram_Video.mov
-
Each camera is different but by and large, just ignore the histogram on the camera when shooting raw. It's mostly a lie. 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
High rez: http://digitaldog.net/files/Histogram_Video.mov
Lie or not, it can give you valuable information for troubleshooting exposure on the fly. You can see if you are pushing towards under/over exposure, or if your scene may push the boundaries of your sensor's dynamic range. But, learning if you can blow the highlights, and by how much, on the histogram is a camera dependent thing, so experiment. Just remember, they are more of guidelines, not rules.
-
Lie or not, it can give you valuable information for troubleshooting exposure on the fly. You can see if you are pushing towards under/over exposure, or if your scene may push the boundaries of your sensor's dynamic range. But, learning if you can blow the highlights, and by how much, on the histogram is a camera dependent thing, so experiment. Just remember, they are more of guidelines, not rules.
cameras with blinkies/zebra in EVF/LV can typically be tuned (if you sacrifices good colors in EVF/LV by using UniWB, flat tone curve, etc) to show clipping in raw channels with not worse than 1/3 EV precision... even w/o true raw histogram
-
You can see if you are pushing towards under/over exposure,
Relatively moot if you're shooting RAW. Ever hear of ETTR. - Jim
-
Hi, all, thanks for stopping by the beginners' area to help with this.
I believe I read somewhere in the past that to get a histogram display that best matches the RAW image capture, saturation, sharpening and/or contrast should be set to levels below 'default' or the middle of the available range on the menu. I can no longer recall when/where I read that, and if others think it's still true or not. For some time I'd set these all 2-3 clicks/marks/notches (however you define it) below middle on the menu bar. Naturally, this made my JPEG's somewhat 'bland' looking, and I needed to do almost as much work to make them presentable for others to see on my Flickr site as I would have if I'd just used the RAW image. I do use an ETTR method so they tend to be a bit washed-out as well.
So, the questions are, how do you set your camera for JPEG preview (and the displayed histogram) in order to assist you in optimizing the RAW capture?
I mostly shoot in 'neutral' and 'monochrome' picture styles. And as long as I"m able to, I will continue to post-process in Aperture.
Thanks for your time. Links to articles discussing this for me (and others) to review are welcome as well.
If you want to optimize your exposure on the 5D mkIII to avoid noise and banding and you shoot at low ISO, then do the following:
Bracket your shots with 1 stop between them and as many as needed so have at least one exposure with blinkies (which means it is potentially overexposed) and at least one thay is not blinking. Shoot RAW, of course. Then in Lightroom or ACR choose the most exposed that does not have overexposure warnings. You check that in Lightroom in the develop module by turning on the highlight clipping indicators. You can use the shortcut J.
Bracketing can be done in continous shooting when there is light enough to avoid blur from mirror slap or shake if you handhold. On the tripod shoot in live view and continous.
Don't waste your time on histograms in the camera as they are not optimal. You need to do the work on selecting the best exposure in pp with this approach but it is worth it, if you want optimal IQ from the Canon. You can also blend exposures afterwards if the dynamic range is too large to avoid noise and banding in then shadows.
-
Don't waste your time on histograms in the camera as they are not optimal.
Exactly! Something many of us did with film, long before we could imagine and worse, depend on a camera Histogram. A Histogram isn't necessary to produce optimal exposure and it's a heck of a lot more forgiving then trying to nail transparency film exposure.
It would be nice IF the camera manufactures would give us a Histogram that wasn't a fat lie when we expect to shoot raw, but that's apparently not on their radar.
-
cameras with blinkies/zebra in EVF/LV can typically be tuned (if you sacrifices good colors in EVF/LV by using UniWB, flat tone curve, etc) to show clipping in raw channels with not worse than 1/3 EV precision... even w/o true raw histogram
Basically, achieving the same thing. I prefer a histogram over blinkies, but to each their own.
Relatively moot if you're shooting RAW. Ever hear of ETTR> - Jim
RAW still has a point it clips. You need to be even more conscious of this fact when doing ETTR as you are purposefully pushing towards that upper clip point.
-
You can see if you are pushing towards under/over exposure, or if your scene may push the boundaries of your sensor's dynamic range.
When shooting JPEG, yes, when shooting raw, no. It's just a big lie.
-
RAW still has a point it clips. You need to be even more conscious of this fact when doing ETTR as you are purposefully pushing towards that upper clip point.
Yes it does have a point that clips, just like transparency film, ever shoot it? This is photography 101 (optimal exposure) and what makes this condition an issue is people depend on feedback (the camera histogram) which has little to do with what they are capturing (raw not JPEG).
It's like getting into a car who's speedometer is 10 MPH too low. Don't complain if you get pulled over for speeding by using the lie of this feedback as factual. The camera histogram based on JPEG isn't based on raw and vise versa. One's gamma correct, one isn't. One's processed (baked), one isn't (raw).
-
When shooting JPEG, yes, when shooting raw, no. It's just a big lie.
If you read the part where I said it was more a guideline, you would realize that I don't expect it to be 100% faithful to the actual data. On my E-m5, with the default jpg settings, I can get about one or two stops past where the upper bound of the histogram is before the white clips.
But, I can also get a generalized idea of where my midtones are falling, how wide the DR is on the scene, and where my exposure could be getting in trouble.
-
Yes it does have a point that clips, just like transparency film, ever shoot it? This is photography 101 (optimal exposure) and what makes this condition an issue is people depend on feedback (the camera histogram) which has little to do with what they are capturing (raw not JPEG).
It's like getting into a car who's speedometer is 10 MPH too low. Don't complain if you get pulled over for speeding by using the lie of this feedback as factual. The camera histogram based on JPEG isn't based on raw and vise versa. One's gamma correct, one isn't. One's processed (baked), one isn't (raw).
Trust me, I have shot plenty of film (and just started B&W again after about a 10 year break). I 100% understand the difference between a RAW file and a jpeg. You don't seem to understand that a person can look at a relative scale to get an impression of what is going on to make some quick tweaks. If you understand the disconnect, you can understand how to interpret the data.
-
If you read the part where I said it was more a guideline, you would realize that I don't expect it to be 100% faithful to the actual data.
It's not even CLOSE to half that value (100% faithful). Depending on the camera system, it's a mile off.
Look, on my 5DMII, I can expose 1.5 stops OVER what the camera histogram and 'blinkies' say is proper exposure and end up without a lick of clipping in the raw converter:
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/exposing-for-raw.html
You're not even in the ball park with the JPEG histogram, just like that speedometer that's 10 MPH or actually more off.
Trust me, I have shot plenty of film
Transparency? Good. If you can nail an exposure on a routine basis to 1/4 of a stop without a camera histogram, you've proven you don't need to pay attention to the lie it tells you about exposure for raw. As others have correctly stated here, if you shoot raw, ignore it, it's not telling you the truth.
-
I can look at a histogram of a camera I know, and get a pretty good idea of what I will have to work with when I get to Lightroom or Photoshop. It's like working in a professional kitchen, yes, you can use tools to get somethings exact, but when you are in the 7pm rush, you don't always have time, and you just learn your tools and instincts. When shooting events, it is the exact same thing. I can glance at the histogram and in a short time know if my exposure is going to give me workable results. It isn't about being exact, it's about getting a point that is workable.
I'll break it down on how I use the histogram.
1. Are white and black all the way in. If they are, then great, if not, how badly are they out.
2. How do the different "zones" of the histogram look? If I have a lot of room to the top, I can shift exposure to over expose knowing this will reduce noise in the shadows.
3. I hate clipped highlights on digital (the roll off is too harsh, while film feels much better, at least to me), so if I see way too much data on the high end of the scale, and lots of extra room at the bottom (I don't mind clipped shadows, and almost always process towards an "inky" black), I'll shift exposure down.
In about a second, I can do those three steps in my head. If I want precision, I'll meter with an external meter.
*edited: removed a slightly inflammatory intro. I mean no ill will, and value DigitalDog's different perspective.*
-
It's not even CLOSE to half that value (100% faithful). Depending on the camera system, it's a mile off.
Look, on my 5DMII, I can expose 1.5 stops OVER what the camera histogram and 'blinkies' say is proper exposure and end up without a lick of clipping in the raw converter:
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/exposing-for-raw.html
You're not even in the ball park with the JPEG histogram, just like that speedometer that's 10 MPH or actually more off. Transparency? Good. If you can nail an exposure on a routine basis to 1/4 of a stop without a camera histogram, you've proven you don't need to pay attention to the lie it tells you about exposure for raw. As others have correctly stated here, if you shoot raw, ignore it, it's not telling you the truth.
Just an FYI, your link is broken.
-
I can look at a histogram of a camera I know, and get a pretty good idea of what I will have to work with when I get to Lightroom or Photoshop.
If you prefer to use a kitchen knife as a screwdriver, by all means use that kludge. You say you can properly expose film and you must have done so without a Histogram (maybe a Polaroid which is just about equally a lie about the E6 film). Why then would you view incorrect data when you state you didn't have to in the past? This JPEG histogram is a lie. I can easily illustrate this and actually did in my article. The meter says I'm 1.5 stops over exposed. ITS WRONG! The JPEG would be, the raw isn't at all and in fact, produces superior data because I didn't treat the raw exposure as if it were a JPEG.
1. Are white and black all the way in. If they are, then great, if not, how badly are they out.
2. How do the different "zones" of the histogram look? If I have a lot of room to the top, I can shift exposure to over expose knowing this will reduce noise in the shadows.
3. I hate clipped highlights on digital (the roll off is too harsh, while film feels much better, at least to me), so if I see way too much data on the high end of the scale, and lots of extra room at the bottom (I don't mind clipped shadows, and almost always process towards an "inky" black), I'll shift exposure down.
What you report is only correct for the JPEG. That's the bottom line and other's here have attempted to point this out. Do you have a raw converter that will show you what a real raw histogram looks like? Because you should seriously look at one versus what you see on the camera. Why on earth would you waste your time looking at this lie when you've admitted it was unnecessary capturing a far more difficult media in terms of exposure (transparency)?
As far as I'm concerned go ahead and futz with a Histogram that has little resemblance to the data you are trying to ideally capture. I'm AOK with that. Suggesting it's a useful workflow for others? Too many holes in that to accept. Again, if you have a Kitchen Knife and a screwdriver and you actually understand how and why each tool works as it does, you're kind of foolish recommending someone carve a turkey using a screw driver. But it's your turkey.
If I want precision, I'll meter with an external meter.
Sorry, no that's not correct. In the article provided, all exposures were based on a Minolta III flash meter, Incident mode. That meter was wrong, it is based again on a rendered (non linear) capture like the JPEG. I used it's initial setting to provide the base exposure which was 1.5 stops TOO DARK. The meter can't be taken at face value any more than your JPEG histogram. It's like setting it to ISO 100 when the capture media is really ISO 25! You cannot separate exposure and development, raw, JPEG or film and each is different. You have to test the media, as some of us did in the film days. ONLY when you know the correct ISO or how to compensate for ideal exposure (which is all ETTR is), that meter is as dumb about this process as your JPEG histogram is for raw data.
-
Just an FYI, your link is broken.
Yup, seems DPP mag has deleted years of older articles.
Here is a PDF:http://digitaldog.net/files/ExposeForRaw.pdf
-
Basically, achieving the same thing. I prefer a histogram over blinkies, but to each their own.
not exactly - blinkies or zebra will show you where the clipping is exactly... histogram not... you certainly can make an educated guess, but the thing is that you have blinkies/zebra together with histogram vs just a histogram... a no brainer IMHO
-
not exactly - blinkies or zebra will show you where the clipping is exactly... histogram not... you certainly can make an educated guess, but the thing is that you have blinkies/zebra together with histogram vs just a histogram... a no brainer IMHO
I can agree to this, I just find blinkies/zebra annoying most of the time. But, it is preference. Although, I'm not sure I have had one that actually uses blinkies and zebras, usually it was blue and red, creating annoying blobs on screen. When I shot DSLR instead of mirrorless, not nearly as annoying.
ONLY when you know the correct ISO or how to compensate for ideal exposure (which is all ETTR is), that meter is as dumb about this process as your JPEG histogram is for raw data.
You know, I think we are saying the same thing, just dancing around how we get to it. My language may not be clear, and my thought processes are often hard for me to properly illiterate. Where you are stuck seems to be thinking that I expect a histogram to be 1:1 to the final image. Hopefully, I never said that. Through shooting with the same camera for a couple of years, I have developed an educated guess on the data the raw file contains. Just like your testing, where you took a lightmeter and ascertained a useable 1.47 stop difference between the meter and that particular camera, my experience has lead to being able to get an idea of how my histogram lays out on my camera vs. what it will get in Lightroom.
RE: Lightmeters - If I use my 558R, which has a spot meter, to meter the lightest and darkest parts, assuming a sensor that gets about 12ev that is useable and the difference between the brightest and darkest spots are 12ev, should optimal exposure not be exactly halfway between? That is what I meant by using a lightmeter.
And a question on Lightroom, isn't the exposure adjustment basically adjusting Gamma? -4EV seems close to what I have seen for a 0 gamma from a RAW file, but I haven't done any testing or really researched the answer to figure out if this was coincidence or reality.
-
Where you are stuck seems to be thinking that I expect a histogram to be 1:1 to the final image.
No, where you are stuck seems to be thinking the tool is honestly defined for it's task. It isn't!
If I were to show you a Histogram of an image that is in ProPhoto RGB represented as sRGB, you're being lied to. If I tell you you're driving 55MPH and you're doing 66MPH, you'er being lied to. If you are driving 55MPH and the meter tells you 56MPH, not really an issue. The disconnect between a JPEG histogram in sRGB (maybe Adobe RGB (1998) ) and the raw data isn't 1MPH out of bounds! I asked you once, I'll ask you a 2nd time. Do you have a raw converter that will show you the actual raw Histogram? If not, I guess I'll try to spends some time making a screen shot for you of it and what the lie on the back of the camera tells me when I properly exposure for raw (NOT JPEG). It's not close. If you like being lied to, I'm OK with that and as I said, my only objection would be you attempting to pass this off to others as acceptable when we could (and can in some cases) get a Histogram that shows is what the data really is. That's not happening in your methodology. Please remember the old sayings about making assumptions and 'close enough for..." That's exactly where the 'use a JPEG Histogram for raw' falls flat.
I don't need to look at a lie and interpolate it into an 'educated guess'. I was exposing film years before anyone had an idea what an image Histogram was. I don't need to guess. Proper exposure is basic photography! It's not difficult to properly expose these differing media, been done for over 100 years.
You look at the LCD, zoom in and see the image is out of focus, it is out of focus! You view the LCD and see you cut off some's head, it's cut off! You view the Histogram, you're viewing the rendered JPEG the proprietary camera electronics produced which isn't the raw. It's as simple as that.
Please tell me, outside this camera LCD Histogram lie, where else you are shown that plotting of data that isn't representing the data as it really is. This Histogram as a tool is excellent for when the camera is set for JEPG and a kludge and lie when shooting raw. The answer isn't to continue to accept the lie, the answer is to demand the camera manufactures provide the truth about the data and stop accepting that the lie is 'close enough'.
-
No, where you are stuck seems to be thinking the tool is honestly defined for it's task. It isn't!
If I were to show you a Histogram of an image that is in ProPhoto RGB represented as sRGB, you're being lied to. If I tell you you're driving 55MPH and you're doing 66MPH, you'er being lied to. If you are driving 55MPH and the meter tells you 56MPH, not really an issue. The disconnect between a JPEG histogram in sRGB (maybe Adobe RGB (1998) ) and the raw data isn't 1MPH out of bounds! I asked you once, I'll ask you a 2nd time.
Do you have a raw converter that will show you the actual raw Histogram?
with my camera (Sony A7 now) I do compare specifically tuned OOC JPG histogram (UniWB, certain camJPG parameters to make if very flat) vs RawDigger histogram (as I use that to do the tuning) - and I get clipping indication with no worse than 1/3 EV precision... so it is 1mph - but OOC JPG is not very usable as an image, yes... but then I do not care about colors in EVF/LV... if you are talking about "usable" (as a finished picture) OOC JPG then true that its histogram might be far away from the raw data.
-
Wow...been a few days since I stopped by here, didn't realize the discussion had advanced so far!
I accept that the JPEG histogram is a 'lie', like the speedo that says 55 when you're doing 65. My real question then is how do I make it as 'little' of a lie as possible? W/the speedo I'd ask someone w/a calibrated unit to drive exactly 55, see where my needle points to and make a mark there. Regardless of what the numbers on the backplate of the dial say, when the needle hits that spot I'm at 55.
So...what in camera settings can I use to get me as close as possible in a JPEG raw histogram to what the RAW h'gram would look like?
I haven't really taken a chance to 'calibrate' the camera, that is take a series of images at differing exposures and therefore different levels of 'blinkies' showing and then try to recover highlights in Aperture. Might make an interesting exercise some day.
Thomas.
-
I accept that the JPEG histogram is a 'lie', like the speedo that says 55 when you're doing 65. My real question then is how do I make it as 'little' of a lie as possible? W/the speedo I'd ask someone w/a calibrated unit to drive exactly 55, see where my needle points to and make a mark there. Regardless of what the numbers on the backplate of the dial say, when the needle hits that spot I'm at 55.
Why would you even care about your speed if there were no police? With your 5DIII it is very difficult to get anything blown-out using internal metering. As long as you are shooting RAW everything can be adjusted in post. It's a different story if you are shooting JPEG and If you're only shooting JPEG's with your 5DIII you need to send it to me! I'll even pay shipping! - Jim
-
Why would you even care about your speed if there were no police? With your 5DIII it is very difficult to get anything blown-out using internal metering. As long as you are shooting RAW everything can be adjusted in post. It's a different story if you are shooting JPEG and If you're only shooting JPEG's with your 5DIII you need to send it to me! I'll even pay shipping! - Jim
That makes no sense if one is shooting raw and attempting ETTR.
The camera will tell you that you are over-exposing and the subsequent in-camera histogram will also tell you that you are over-exposed and have blown the highlights.
With the 5D mark III there is at least 1.5 stops of highlight headroom on a raw exposure beyond where an in-camera histogram will tell you that the highlights are gone.
Noise issues with this camera make ETTR a much bigger deal than with any of the late-model cameras using Sony sensors.
As for the OP's question about how to get the best estimation of the raw histogram in-camera the answer I provided very early one - set the picture style to faithful. It won't be accurate for all the reasons very eloquently explained by Andrew Rodney but IMHO it is the best of a bad scenario. Roll on the raw in-camera histogram!
Tony Jay
-
I would also propose you do a bit of reading on gamma and sensors. The 2.2 gamma of a rendered jpeg is made to effectively give your system gamma of 1. Also note that as you approach the high and low end, your sensor will have an additional gamma that will lead to inconsistencies. Thus, not trying to cram everything into the top portion of the sensor's can lead to easier and more accurate colors.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/gamma-correction.htm
And for giggles, an article that basically tells you that there is no 100% proven exposure technique to work with 100% of scenes.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-exposure-techniques.htm
-
And for giggles, an article that basically tells you that there is no 100% proven exposure technique to work with 100% of scenes.
Probably true but most pro's and serious photographers strive to get as close to that goal as their knowledge of the science of photography allows. And then there's "Close Enough" for the others...
A soft proof on the most expensive and sophisticated display products on the planet will never match a reflective print 100%. That doesn't stop some of us from attempting the highest degree match we can achieve.
Actually the article is wrong if you consider bracketing....
-
My real question then is how do I make it as 'little' of a lie as possible?
first of all you start by getting rid of WB = UniWB (raw channel multipliers as close to 1.0 as possible)
-
first of all you start by getting rid of WB = UniWB (raw channel multipliers as close to 1.0 as possible)
Right. And here's a way -- several ways, actually -- to do that:
http://blog.kasson.com/?page_id=2387
Jim
-
Probably true but most pro's and serious photographers strive to get as close to that goal as their knowledge of the science of photography allows. And then there's "Close Enough" for the others...
A soft proof on the most expensive and sophisticated display products on the planet will never match a reflective print 100%. That doesn't stop some of us from attempting the highest degree match we can achieve.
Actually the article is wrong if you consider bracketing....
Most pros I know or have heard, strive to get the shot that works best for their needs. This often takes into consideration total workflow, and usually the image you have to mess with the least out of camera ends up being the best shot. But to be fair, I don't know too many pros.
Bracketing isn't always an option. I used to shoot a lot of events and sports, and bracketing was almost never an option if you wanted to get the right shot.
-
Given this is in the Beginner's Questions forum, it is probably a bit much to expect the OP is a tranny sharp shooter. In that case, the histogram is going to be of some use to him. Understanding that it is lying and why it is lying is part of that process. I never mastered film exposure (didn't do a lot of photography before the digital revolution), and I find the histogram useful in a broad sense. I'm never going to rely on it for high accuracy, but it's good to get a rough idea of where you exposure is falling. I recently changed from my old 5D to a Nikon, so I am yet to get a really good handle on the how the jpeg histogram might relate to the underlying raw data, but I'm still in the ballpark from my previous experience with the 5D. With the 5D, I got pretty good at guessing raw ETTR from the jpg histogram. It was even more challenging for a while, as I didn't realise my on-camera histogram could display each colour channel - D'oh! So I had to make an allowance for what type of light I was shooting in in regards to what channel was likely to be more clipped than the others. Also understanding how an image goes from raw to a jpeg, as I mentioned earlier, allowed me to understand which channels are more likely to clip in the jpg histogram. Of course, none of this was an accurate science, but any information you can add into the process helps, IMO.
Regarding getting your jpg histogram to tell the smallest lie possible, in regards to ETTR, you can use the uni white balance technique that Guillermo van Luik developed here on LL a number of years ago. I played around with it for a while on my 5D and found that all that pixel pushing/peeping was just too much for me to bother with. And as others have said, I too don't like how highlights come out that have been captured just sort of sensor saturation. These days I prefer to leave a little head room in the raw (by usually just over exposing the jpeg) so that the highlights look a little more natural.
-
Wow...been a few days since I stopped by here, didn't realize the discussion had advanced so far!
I accept that the JPEG histogram is a 'lie', like the speedo that says 55 when you're doing 65. My real question then is how do I make it as 'little' of a lie as possible? ...
Thomas.
Try using the Magic Lantern firmware for the 5DIII. In Live View it provides a real-time raw histogram, with raw clipping indication in EV for the raw R, G and B channels. If you choose to set up a UniWB, you can specify in-camera WB multipliers explicitly (RGBG = 1 1 1 1), instead of having to load a specific magenta raw file onto a memory card to specify as a custom white balance. ML will also perform automatic ETTR if you enable it, among many other features and implementations that make a 5DIII a very versatile raw shooting tool, instead of a JPEG camera with raw file capability.
Kirk
-
The best advise for a beginner is to tape over the back screen and ever worry about. ...
Interesting statement and yes that has from my point of view a lot of truth in it.
In film days there was no way to know how the image would come out (you knew it 2-3 days later) and that with the time made you have more and more experienced.
Nowadays I catch myself peeking after every shot on the display screen, in order to later find out that the images are better or worse as seen in the display so I try not to lurk at the display anymore and rely on my experience from film days ...
-
Try using the Magic Lantern firmware for the 5DIII. In Live View it provides a real-time raw histogram, with raw clipping indication in EV for the raw R, G and B channels. If you choose to set up a UniWB, you can specify in-camera WB multipliers explicitly (RGBG = 1 1 1 1), instead of having to load a specific magenta raw file onto a memory card to specify as a custom white balance. ML will also perform automatic ETTR if you enable it, among many other features and implementations that make a 5DIII a very versatile raw shooting tool, instead of a JPEG camera with raw file capability.
Kirk
I've been shooting with ML on my 6D for a couple of week now and the RAW histogram is really good. Has anyone noticed a difference in the histogram you see in live view and the histogram on the image review?
-
Nowadays I catch myself peeking after every shot on the display screen, in order to later find out that the images are better or worse as seen in the display so I try not to lurk at the display anymore and rely on my experience from film days ...
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Check the display for obvious problems that will only be fixable by taking another photo.
-
Each camera is different but by and large, just ignore the histogram on the camera when shooting raw. It's mostly a lie.
Personally, I make frequent use of the histogram in my work, and ignoring it would be a mistake, IMHO. It is not a complete lie, but only the partial truth. One should perform tests to relate the appearance of the camera histogram to the status of the raw file. Here are results of such testing for the Nikon D800e using a neutral picture control.
In this shot, the luminance histogram is just short of clipping.
(https://bjanes.smugmug.com/Photography/D800-Stouffer/i-p6MJvFr/0/O/LCD_0002.png)
The green channels of raw histogram are slightly more than 0.5 EV below clipping. This is a good ETTR exposure that allows 0.5 EV of highlight headroom. With the excellent performance of this sensor, it is not necessary to perform extreme ETTR.
(https://bjanes.smugmug.com/Photography/D800-Stouffer/i-Gm3qwBc/0/O/img2.png)
Giving 0.3 EV additional exposure produces highlight clipping of the camera histogram.
(https://bjanes.smugmug.com/Photography/D800-Stouffer/i-NCq7XxX/0/O/LCD_0001_800.png)
The green channels of the raw histogram are about 0.3 EV short of clipping.
(https://bjanes.smugmug.com/Photography/D800-Stouffer/i-HRmbjv9/0/O/img1.png)
The take home point is that an ETTR exposure just short of clipping on the camera histogram will give a decent raw histogram, and slight clipping on the camera histogram will give an even better raw histogram, but with some danger of blown highlights. If one needs to evaluate the blue and red channel, UniWB can be used, but this is usually not worth the trouble unless one is dealing with saturated reds and blues where white balance will clip the camera RGB histogram with intact red or blue raw channels.
Regards,
Bill
-
It is not a complete lie, but only the partial truth
Gotta say, if I ever need a good lawyer Bill, you're my man ;D
All kidding aside, yes, it isn't a complete lie. But why should we be told half truths? When will we get a true raw histogram without a hack?
And there's still a huge world out there that believes that what they see on the LCD histogram is factual, not a half lie. They believe if they shoot for that lie, their raws (and JPEGs) are being optimally handled which of course isn't the case.
As a guy who captured a lot of images over many decades on film, the need for a histogram isn't essential to me, it would be far more useful if it told me the facts, not a half truth.