ETTR and RAW preview

[meehee dee]

I have seen many posts saying that exposing to the right using RAWs can be difficult because you never know what the JPEG-engine is doing with your RAWs. What I noticed however is, that the cameras I have tested generate the JPEG preview of the RAW file using the JPEG settings in action. With my D300 this means, that I took the STANDARD profile an decreased the contrast to the lowest possible level to get a preview image that is more reliable when it comes to judging how much more to the right I can expose. This might still not be a hundred percent identical to what will show up in Lightroom or other RAW-converters, but it is definitely an improvement. Maybe everybody is already doing this and i simply missed it, in which case I apologize.

Best,
Michael

[Rand47]

Michael,

Thanks for the post.  You're correct, though, that most of us already tweak the jpg settings so that the LCD histogram is as close as possible to representing RAW data.

The bigger question in my mind is, "Why the heck don't the manufacturers of professional and advanced amateur cameras offer a RAW histogram display option?"

It can't be "that" hard to do.  I suspect it might even be able to be done via firmware.

Rand

[meehee dee]

You're correct, though, that most of us already tweak the jpg settings so that the LCD histogram is as close as possible to representing RAW data.

Even better!

Have they been asked often enough to integrate such a function and what has been replied?

Best,
Michael

[torger]

I've heard that there are some manufacturers that actually provide RAW histograms, was it Leica? I don't remember. Anyway, Canon and Nikon tend to be very conservative when it comes to new features in their user interfaces so I would not expect any RAW histogram soon from them, but one never knows....

However, when I shoot still life (landscape etc) I'm not too dependent on an exact histogram. I bracket a lot, and would probably do even if I had an exact histogram. The thing is I like "controlled overexposure", for example blowing one or two channels in white clouds or other monochrome highlights and reconstruct in the RAW developer software instead. Monochrome highlights is usually very well reconstructed with only one channel available. With controlled overexposure I get less noise in the shadows which to me is often more valuable than having complete RGB information in the highlights. It is however hard to know how well the reconstruction will work in post-processing, so I do some bracketing to be sure I have an exposure that works.

I keep my camera JPEG settings to the default, that way there is a good default reference picture embedded in the RAW file that can be used if I'm a bit unsure of the RAW developer settings. To me this is a better way to work than to distort JPEG settings to get a more exact histogram more similar to what the RAW histogram would be. I'd sure like to have a RAW histogram though, it would minimize the need to bracket (especially if it could visualize which channels that are blown where with colorized blinking highlights).

If you're really into maximizing dynamic range in still life photo and don't mind messing with color correction you could also apply a color filter on the lens to even out the RGB channel sensitivity (so that channels are blown about simultaneously not one far ahead of the others, green is usually most sensitive, red the least, with one stop or so in difference), CC30, KR-12 and 40R filters could be useful for that.

[Peter_DL]

I keep my camera JPEG settings to the default, that way there is a good default reference picture embedded in the RAW file that can be used...
I'd sure like to have a RAW histogram though, it would minimize the need to bracket...

 

Valid point.
I’ve heard (off the records) that there are actually people who shoot Raw + JPG.
It must be a minority among the Raw shooter, but then, as a matter of fact,  this feature seems to be offered with most of today’s cameras 

Peter

--

[JimAscher]

Valid point.
I’ve heard (off the records) that there are actually people who shoot Raw + JPG.
It must be a minority among the Raw shooter, but then, as a matter of fact,  this feature seems to be offered with most of today’s cameras 

Peter

--

Peter:  OK, in my ignorance, what am I missing here?  I shoot Raw + JPG, with the JPG set to record in black-and-white, so I get to see in my camera and in my thumbnails what my photos look like initially in black-and-white (which is what I print).  Please enlighten me as to the perceived disadvantages of this method.  Thanks.  Jim

[Bryan Conner]

Peter:  OK, in my ignorance, what am I missing here?  I shoot Raw + JPG, with the JPG set to record in black-and-white, so I get to see in my camera and in my thumbnails what my photos look like initially in black-and-white (which is what I print).  Please enlighten me as to the perceived disadvantages of this method.  Thanks.  Jim

While I am not Peter,  , I do not think that there is anything at all wrong with shooting Raw+Jpeg if you are not concerned with memory card space.  I have very rarely done it myself.  Most modern cameras have fast enough processors and write speed that the extra time to write both to the memory card is not an issue.  So, no real disadvantage as a whole...only a disadvantage if it negatively affects your individual shooting situation.  

You may already know this (but others may not): If you are only wanting to see the image in Black & White on the LCD, you do not have to shoot RAW+Jpeg, you can simply set your camera preferences to Black and White and the raw file will still render as color as usual, only the jpeg preview on the lcd will be in BW and no jpeg will be written to the memory card.  I know this to be true for Canon.  I do not know about or use Nikon, Pentax, Sony etc.

[JimAscher]

While I am not Peter,  , I do not think that there is anything at all wrong with shooting Raw+Jpeg if you are not concerned with memory card space.  I have very rarely done it myself.  Most modern cameras have fast enough processors and write speed that the extra time to write both to the memory card is not an issue.  So, no real disadvantage as a whole...only a disadvantage if it negatively affects your individual shooting situation.  

You may already know this (but others may not): If you are only wanting to see the image in Black & White on the LCD, you do not have to shoot RAW+Jpeg, you can simply set your camera preferences to Black and White and the raw file will still render as color as usual, only the jpeg preview on the lcd will be in BW and no jpeg will be written to the memory card.  I know this to be true for Canon.  I do not know about or use Nikon, Pentax, Sony etc.

Bryan:  Quite true that to only see black-and-white on the camera's LCD, one needn't shoot Raw + Jpeg.  I should have clarified my preferences for shooting both.  When I later transfer the shots to my PC processing software (LR and/or PS) I like to have the option to see the photos rendered on screen initially in black-and-white (in addition to in-color in their RAW formats).  And my camera memory cards are plenty large enough.  Thanks for the reminder and opportunity for my clarification.  Jim

[madmanchan]

Jim, the main thing to keep in mind with your raw+jpeg approach is that there may be (often is) a visual disconnect between the initial preview and the processed raw file.  Specifically, the initial B&W preview that you see on the camera LCD has one B&W rendition.  Then when you bring your raw file into your raw converter and convert it to B&W (either manually or via a preset), that's another B&W rendition which may look very different from the initial jpeg preview.  This is because there are many different ways to "mix" the color data into B&W results, and the camera's way of doing it may not (often doesn't) match the way the raw conversion software does it (unless you're using the maker's own raw conversion software).  If you don't care about or don't mind this visual jump, then you're all set.

[JimAscher]

Jim, the main thing to keep in mind with your raw+jpeg approach is that there may be (often is) a visual disconnect between the initial preview and the processed raw file.  Specifically, the initial B&W preview that you see on the camera LCD has one B&W rendition.  Then when you bring your raw file into your raw converter and convert it to B&W (either manually or via a preset), that's another B&W rendition which may look very different from the initial jpeg preview.  This is because there are many different ways to "mix" the color data into B&W results, and the camera's way of doing it may not (often doesn't) match the way the raw conversion software does it (unless you're using the maker's own raw conversion software).  If you don't care about or don't mind this visual jump, then you're all set.

Eric:  I don't intend for the black-and-white jpeg to represent anything more than just a rough approximation of what I might achieve later by processing the raw image.  I have no intention of ever printing the jpeg image.  It is just an aid to me in selecting which photos I may wish to work further on.  It gives me some idea of black-and-white tonality which a color thumbnail doesn't really give me.  I do have a somewhat limited imagination in this regard.  Thanks, though, for your thoughts.  Jim