Thanks. It's a pleasure.
Thanks. It's a pleasure.
It gets the raw and JPEG histograms to have similar (but not exactly; highly-saturated colors may vary) to have the same ratios of red/green/blue, but that does not address the difference in overall headroom.
You are slandering a product/app you clearly know very little about.
"This hammer sucks as a screwdriver".
@bobn2 has written: @DonaldB has written:It all comes down to what you shoot
No, it all comes down to whether you really want the 'best exposure' or your willing to settle for good enough. Remember, in raw 'best exposure' has nothing to do with the image lightness and everything to do with maximising information content. But in most cases the difference between 'best' and 'good enough' is visually not that big unless you're very critical.
Determine best . there is no best period.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm8D-7Z8pdo&t=97s
"Best exposure" for getting normal image lightness with conversion defaults, and "best exposure" for highest SNR are two different things. It helps to clarify exactly what you're talking about.
@DonaldB has written: @JimKasson has written: @DonaldB has written:my a74 histogram and blinkies were spot on within the range of the cameras 1/3 stop accuracy.
That's certainly not the case for the histogram with the example you posted earlier. The red channel of the in-camera histogram was way off.
fixed that by a simple WB calibration in camera .it was a very fine adjustment. to pull the reds back. the waveform meter on my field monitor was also perfect when shooting the image.
It's over a month now, and you still don't see the difference between "normal" exposure for an ISO setting, and how much exposure you can actually give for that setting? Most current digital cameras, especially ones with dual conversion gain, can take exposures suitable for half the base ISO setting, at a minimum, especially if the scene is evenly lit and there are no lights or specular reflections in it. I've done a "sunny f/16" type exposure for ISO 25 using the base ISO setting of 100 or extended ISO 50 on my Canon R5 on a bright day, with very little raw clipping (glossy bright white paint). If you want to crop hard or display very large, that could make it much easier to sharpen details without over-sharpening noise.
It can also help at higher exposure indexes, too to use a higher ISO to get your exposure to the right of the raw histogram, but that won't improve photon noise; only read noise (which could still be helpful for some purposes).
havnt tried it , might give it a go now ,thanks
@JohnSheehyRev has written:It's over a month now, and you still don't see the difference between "normal" exposure for an ISO setting, and how much exposure you can actually give for that setting? Most current digital cameras, especially ones with dual conversion gain, can take exposures suitable for half the base ISO setting, at a minimum, especially if the scene is evenly lit and there are no lights or specular reflections in it. I've done a "sunny f/16" type exposure for ISO 25 using the base ISO setting of 100 or extended ISO 50 on my Canon R5 on a bright day, with very little raw clipping (glossy bright white paint). If you want to crop hard or display very large, that could make it much easier to sharpen details without over-sharpening noise.
It can also help at higher exposure indexes, too to use a higher ISO to get your exposure to the right of the raw histogram, but that won't improve photon noise; only read noise (which could still be helpful for some purposes).
not going there iso 25 is extended iso and electronic, i will keep to analog thanks.
John didn't suggest setting the ISO to less than base ISO except in the example. He certainly didn't suggest setting the ISO to 25. Re-read what he said.
@DonaldB has written: @JohnSheehyRev has written:It's over a month now, and you still don't see the difference between "normal" exposure for an ISO setting, and how much exposure you can actually give for that setting? Most current digital cameras, especially ones with dual conversion gain, can take exposures suitable for half the base ISO setting, at a minimum, especially if the scene is evenly lit and there are no lights or specular reflections in it. I've done a "sunny f/16" type exposure for ISO 25 using the base ISO setting of 100 or extended ISO 50 on my Canon R5 on a bright day, with very little raw clipping (glossy bright white paint). If you want to crop hard or display very large, that could make it much easier to sharpen details without over-sharpening noise.
It can also help at higher exposure indexes, too to use a higher ISO to get your exposure to the right of the raw histogram, but that won't improve photon noise; only read noise (which could still be helpful for some purposes).
not going there iso 25 is extended iso and electronic, i will keep to analog thanks.
John didn't suggest setting the ISO to less than base ISO except in the example.
Thanks i now understand. From the past John has always been a very good educator and knowledge base.
@DonaldB has written:so the histogram is NOT recorded from the jpeg file. you guys got it all wrong.
In-camera histogram IS.
Excellent. Pardon my edit ...
Most current digital cameras, especially ones with dual conversion gain, can take exposures suitable for half the base ISO setting, at a minimum, especially if the scene is evenly lit and there are no lights or specular reflections in it. I've done a "sunny f/16" type exposure for ISO 25 using the base ISO setting of 100 or extended ISO 50 on my Canon R5 on a bright day, with very little raw clipping (glossy bright white paint).
A lot of the current crop of digital cameras meter for 12.5% or less of raw green full scale. So what you're reporting makes sense.
@DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:for the record the histogram
116K green pixels clipped?
perfect. because i had the slightest of zebras flashing.
No, because you've set the camera that way. Zebras are only an imperfect indicator.
oh no i didnt, i took the image based on the histogram not the zebras 😁 i only checked the zebras,
so the histogram is NOT recorded from the jpeg file. you guys got it all wrong.In-camera histogram is.
Enable live RGB histogram and start changing white balance. You'll see how it affects the histogram in the real time in the field...
there is no live RGB histogram on my a74. thats the point.
But my field monitor has live RGB wave forms, and i can see what the WB is doing when changing the settings. The a74 has amazing AWB anyway and i can always fine tune in ACR for important photoshoots. other wise i have my white balance very fine tuned for studio work, but i still need to correct colour shifts from using several speed and studio lights.
In-camera histogram is.
you want some more evidence. my a74 doesnt have RGB live histogram. but my field monitor has RGB wave forms. i can clip all the colours on the wave form
monitor which is streaming from hdmi. but my incamera histogram still has room to move. so when i set exposure with the camera histogram the wave form monitor has clipped. a good stop
@knickerhawk has written: @DonaldB has written: @knickerhawk has written: @DonaldB has written: @knickerhawk has written: @DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:for the record the histogram
116K green pixels clipped?
perfect. because i had the slightest of zebras flashing.
No, because you've set the camera that way. Zebras are only an imperfect indicator.
oh no i didnt, i took the image based on the histogram not the zebras 😁 i only checked the zebras,
so the histogram is NOT recorded from the jpeg file. you guys got it all wrong.Now take a shot of a bunch of red flowers "based on the histogram" just like you did for that prior shot and post the screen grabs for the in-camera live histogram and the Fast Raw Viewer histograms of the flower shot just like you did for the prior shot.
did that yesterday a red lunch box and a yellow leaf.
Btw red flowers are mid tones 😂🤣Mid tones? That's a strange claim, but it doesn't matter what "tones" they are in the image as long as they're a significant presence in the scene so it's easy to identify where they are showing up in the histogram(s). I guarantee you will learn something useful if you follow through on the test and post your results.
Perhaps, but your skill as a flower photographer isn't the dispute. It's your claim that the A6300's in-camera live histogram is based on the raw data, rather than the RGB/JPEG data, that's being questioned.
ive already posted my comparisons. You have a camera do the test yourself, why take my word.
Because we know exactly how this story plays out with you. If you can't see it for yourself using your own equipment and doing your own testing, you simply won't accept as proof what any of the rest of us offer. However, if you give your word now that you will repeat the same test with your A6300 that you used yesterday to "prove" the camera's live luminance histogram matches the raw histogram but this time using a shot dominated by one or more red flowers or similarly vibrantly red subject(s) and include the corresponding raw file and OOC JPEG, then I promise I'll do a similar test using my current working camera (an Oly EM1iii) and, likewise, submit the raw and OOC JPEG here for anyone to view and analyze. Do we have a deal?
do you think you can teach me how to shoot flowers 😂🤣🤣
It depends on your expectations, If you are happy with that then more power to ya.
@DonaldB has written: @knickerhawk has written: @DonaldB has written: @knickerhawk has written: @DonaldB has written: @knickerhawk has written: @DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:for the record the histogram
116K green pixels clipped?
perfect. because i had the slightest of zebras flashing.
No, because you've set the camera that way. Zebras are only an imperfect indicator.
oh no i didnt, i took the image based on the histogram not the zebras 😁 i only checked the zebras,
so the histogram is NOT recorded from the jpeg file. you guys got it all wrong.Now take a shot of a bunch of red flowers "based on the histogram" just like you did for that prior shot and post the screen grabs for the in-camera live histogram and the Fast Raw Viewer histograms of the flower shot just like you did for the prior shot.
did that yesterday a red lunch box and a yellow leaf.
Btw red flowers are mid tones 😂🤣Mid tones? That's a strange claim, but it doesn't matter what "tones" they are in the image as long as they're a significant presence in the scene so it's easy to identify where they are showing up in the histogram(s). I guarantee you will learn something useful if you follow through on the test and post your results.
Perhaps, but your skill as a flower photographer isn't the dispute. It's your claim that the A6300's in-camera live histogram is based on the raw data, rather than the RGB/JPEG data, that's being questioned.
ive already posted my comparisons. You have a camera do the test yourself, why take my word.
Because we know exactly how this story plays out with you. If you can't see it for yourself using your own equipment and doing your own testing, you simply won't accept as proof what any of the rest of us offer. However, if you give your word now that you will repeat the same test with your A6300 that you used yesterday to "prove" the camera's live luminance histogram matches the raw histogram but this time using a shot dominated by one or more red flowers or similarly vibrantly red subject(s) and include the corresponding raw file and OOC JPEG, then I promise I'll do a similar test using my current working camera (an Oly EM1iii) and, likewise, submit the raw and OOC JPEG here for anyone to view and analyze. Do we have a deal?
do you know how many links ive already posted. you do the test and lets see what the em13 is doing.
have a deal. do you know how many links ive already posted. you do the test and lets see what the em13 is doing.
Let's see if you carry out your part of the deal. My 2c says you won't.
@DonaldB has written:have a deal. do you know how many links ive already posted. you do the test and lets see what the em13 is doing.
Let's see if you carry out your part of the deal. My 2c says you won't.
I said haaaaaave aaaaaaaaa deeeeeeeeal meaning not. or i would of said you have a deal.
@DannoLeftForums has written: @DonaldB has written:have a deal. do you know how many links ive already posted. you do the test and lets see what the em13 is doing.
Let's see if you carry out your part of the deal. My 2c says you won't.
I said haaaaaave aaaaaaaaa deeeeeeeeal meaning not. or i would of said you have a deal.
Knickerhawk asked
Do we have a deal?
You replied
@DonaldB has written:have a deal.
That's a clear acceptance of Knickerhawk's deal.
Below is a history of the edits you made to your post trying to weazle your way out of what you agreed to. It proves you said "have a deal". People can judge for themselves what you meant.
@IliahBorg has written: @DavidMillier has written:raising the ISO is effectively underexposure
No, it can be any exposure. Sometimes I raise both ISO and exposure.
Well, I'm not going to dispute with Iliah, but I'll try and explain why I said that.
Assuming the goal is ETTR at base ISO. If I don't have enough light to achieve that, I can resort to raising the ISO. But we know that doing that doesn't magically make the sensor more sensitive. In effect, what it does is underexpose compared to an ideal ETTR exposure and then lie to you to make you feel good about it.
I re-read this several times because it didn't seem to make any sense but Jim "liked" it, but I still can't make any sense out of it. How do you "underexpose" by using a higher ISO setting with the same exposure that is not strong enough for ETTR at base ISO? You will be further to the right of the ISO setting that you wind up with.