In-camera RAW histograms

[mouse]

The subject/debate is not new.  It has been around for years.  Did you perhaps miss here?

[Frans Waterlander]

Respect has to be earned.

Yes, agreed.

[Frans Waterlander]

The subject/debate is not new.  It has been around for years.  Did you perhaps miss here?

I remember that. Sad to see that no progress has been made.

[chez]

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? 

Respect takes a long time to be earned...yet can be lost in a blink of the eye...just saying...

[chez]

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.

[Frans Waterlander]

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.

[digitaldog]

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
High rez: http://digitaldog.net/files/Histogram_Video.mov

[chez]

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

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.

[chez]

Both have pros and cons.

What are they?

[digitaldog]

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.

[digitaldog]

What are they?

IF you're shooting raw, there's only cons; the Histogram (and your "blinkies") are just lies.

[Frans Waterlander]

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.

[chez]

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.

[digitaldog]

What are they?

As you can now see, no pros provided.
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. 

[digitaldog]

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.

[chez]

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.

[Jim Kasson]

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

[digitaldog]

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

[Frans Waterlander]

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.

[digitaldog]

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!