Do we really need bracketed exposures and HDR programs anymore?

[DP]

Yes: REREAD his wrong statement

my correct statement was "Adobe supplied DCP profiles use non linear color transforms, hence using them and calling the result (output after ACR/LR) "scene-referred" is plain stupid"

PS: if you refer to the quite ancient articles @ color org from the times when Adobe supplied only matrix profiles then you at least need to have some decency to add notes about that (matrix vs what kind of DCP profiles will be used NOW unless you take care not to use them) 

[digitaldog]

my correct statement was "Adobe supplied DCP profiles use non linear color transforms, hence using them and calling the result (output after ACR/LR) "scene-referred" is plain stupid"

PS: if you refer to the quite ancient articles @ color org from the times when Adobe supplied only matrix profiles then you at least need to have some decency to add notes about that 

We are not and should not drink your bleach. The results of the raw as the color scientists at the ICC describe are clear. And obtainable.

[kirkt]

....

The image looks pretty decent, and its histogram is a good proxy for the RAW histogram. The bad news is that no commercial RAW developer nor camera provides something like any of those two images. All of them apply white balance and colour profile conversion (which mixes up the three RGB components), so having a "Linear" option in your camera or RAW developer is not very useful if you are interested in the genuine RAW histogram.


Regards

...

Raw Photo Processor provides settings which will permit you to produce an output file identical to:


dcraw -T -4 -r 1 1 1 1 -o 0 <raw filename>


i.e., linear, 16bit TIFF, UniWB, raw color output.  With these settings in the application, the histogram will display the raw histogram that you would get if you viewed the raw file in Raw Digger or FRV.  Pretty handy.

Kirk

[Guillermo Luijk]

I know Kirk, but RPP is not a RAW developer any photographer would use to process his/her real work, it's just a DCRAW front end like some others have existed for a while. I was talking about mainstream commercial RAW developers like ACR, LR, C1,... or any camera. Much closer to the concept of a RAW developer with RAW histogram abilities is RAW Therapee, but again a non-commercial niche tool.

Regards

[kirkt]

I know Kirk, but RPP is not a RAW developer any photographer would use to process his/her real work, it's just a DCRAW front end like some others have existed for a while. I was talking about mainstream commercial RAW developers like ACR, LR, C1,... or any camera. Much closer to the concept of a RAW developer with RAW histogram abilities is RAW Therapee, but again a non-commercial niche tool.

Regards

It is still puzzling why all camera manufacturers offer raw file acquisition, but none offer a set of tools for evaluating the acquisition of raw files.  FWIW, I use RPP for my "real" work, but I do not consider myself a photographer, so I guess your point stands!

Also, my XPro-3 and my X100V both shoot in HDR mode where three separate exposures are acquired and blended, in camera, to produce a single raw output file.  It's almost like having Zero Noise built in to my camera, except from my initial evaluation of the files, the exposure increments are not large enough to rival the output of your application.  Still, better than nothing.

Kirk

[Guillermo Luijk]

It is still puzzling why all camera manufacturers offer raw file acquisition, but none offer a set of tools for evaluating the acquisition of raw files.

We hoped this for years. I consider it's time to give up waiting for such a feature: camera manufacturers clearly didn't consider it a plus, and it will become less and less necessary as digital sensors improve their performance and image processing relays more and more on IA. RAW histograms or clipping warnings are nice as an analysis feature, but a photographer is not going to analyse his pictures but process them. So having the RAW histogram when you cannot use it to improve capture becomes of little use to the photographer. It's rather a forensic tool.

Regards

[Alan Klein]

We hoped this for years. I consider it's time to give up waiting for such a feature: camera manufacturers clearly didn't consider it a plus, and it will become less and less necessary as digital sensors improve their performance and image processing relays more and more on IA. RAW histograms or clipping warnings are nice as an analysis feature, but a photographer is not going to analyse his pictures but process them. So having the RAW histogram when you cannot use it to improve capture becomes of little use to the photographer. It's rather a forensic tool.

Regards

I started using my P&S as a light meter when I shoot film.  Would having RAW histograms make the P&S a better meter?

[digitaldog]

I started using my P&S as a light meter when I shoot film.  Would having RAW histograms make the P&S a better meter?

If you are using the meter ideally, for the raw data, then no. Again, some of us optimally exposed film (and tricky transparency) without a Histogram, for decades.

[Alan Klein]

If you are using the meter ideally, for the raw data, then no. Again, some of us optimally exposed film (and tricky transparency) without a Histogram, for decades.

I've been using a Minolta light meter for years as well.  But with medium format, I'd bracket because film is cheap relatively.   But I just started using a 4x5 camera, all new to me.
 I decided to also try using a digital P&S camera as a tool as well.  It allows me to line up a 4x5 shot before setting up the LF camera, setting the zoom to match the view angle of the 4x5 lens, and to see what the picture looks like in BW when I'm shooting BW film.  Of course, I'm also trying to use the camera as a meter as well.  Beside histograms, I can use it as a spot meter or center meter.  It will get more interesting when I start shooting Velvia 50 in 4x5.  I'm saving this film for when I have more experience shooting a large format camera, a challenge in itself.

If you were going to use a P&S camera and take advantage of its histogram, and spot and center metering, what would you be looking for when shooting chromes and BW negative film? 

[Guillermo Luijk]

I started using my P&S as a light meter when I shoot film.  Would having RAW histograms make the P&S a better meter?

RAW means linear light measurement, and this means the ability to calculate the precise relations of light in stops in the scene. In the end each individual pixel in a digital sensor acts as a light meter, and you have millions of those. Perhaps you can get some cheap Canon DSLR model working with Magic Lantern; this firmware allows for RAW histograms expressed in EV stops:



But Magic Lantern is not an easy path to install and have it working.

Regards