How to get the best raw exposure, part 2

It takes at least two to have a "back and forth". In the real world; some can do it endlessly, some will tire of it eventually, and some will eventually give up if ignored long enough. It probably works similarly in the virtual world.

We have had two main back and forth-ers in this thread, and in the exposure threads that preceded it.

But there's the question of what is the proper response to statements that are objectively wrong. Should they be ignored, trusting the unsophisticated thread reader to understand that they're wrong? Or should they be countered?

whats annoying is everyone is to lazy and gutless to there own testing, im not here to do all the running around, if anyone wants to prove my findings incorrect then be my guest DO YOUR OWN TESTING is that so hard or life threatening ?

I've documented the results of my testing extensively over the years in more than 2500 blog posts.

The question on the in-camera histogram being derived from JPEG for the cameras you use(d) doesn't need any additional testing, it's a known fact. Incidentally, you proved it too.
You also proved that zebras are not perfect.
What else is there?

Buy a Sony FF camera . shot with m43 for years.

I was told off for correcting some “made up facts” in a brand specific forum on here. But the progress is I wasn’t sandboxed or banned for simply correctly some bare faced….. err “non-facts”

My view is that ideally real facts should be accepted for the reason that they are, well, facts! But then the debate is healthiest if it’s then about how, why, or IF to implement them.

Debate is healthy, but equally a scientific fact doesn’t mean that everyone should implement them, or that those that don’t are somehow stupid.

The tricky bit is how to filter the inevitable noise that achieves neither objective. I’m not in favour of censorship (moderation) so I hope things here will simply settle down once folk have got “I can say what I want” out of their system.

Anyway….. this is going off topic…. As you were!

You left out the part that said...

Take your pick. You can argue endlessly, which will usually involve a lot of repetition of the same basic points framed differently; give up after you've made your points and allow the topic of contention (or sometimes competition) to wither away; or ignore it and move on with life. Some may find more creative alternatives to those basic options outlined.

"This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put." -- Winston Churchill😁

not you Jim just the other members that constantly mock my findings.

“Keep Buggering on” - - Winston Churchill

I wonder why you keep saying that being fully aware it isn't true.

BTW, have you read www.fastrawviewer.com/white-balance-as-per-channel-exposure-correction ?

Im not ashamed about my poor English writing skills 😎 but jim has also stated he hasnt played with any of the latest sony cameras . not that i really matters because my a6300 shows the same histogram accuracy as my a74.

post a link please specifically relating to histogram accuracy.

no one has a detailed article showing actual on camera images of histograms and direct software histograms or even colour picker samples from photoshop clearly showing the almost whites at 253 to 255 from 16 bit files.i have posted numerous with highly accurate comparisons.

already read that.
frv quote.
One might say that inaccurate white balance is no longer a problem since Auto white balance is quite accurate now. However, in RAW data there is no way to differentiate between the colors present in the scene and the color of the light hitting it. Because of that, if an object in the scene has some saturated colour, usually a shade of red or blue, applying white balance may result in a false overexposure warning.