How to get the best raw exposure, part 2

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.

How about this? www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/in-camera-histogram-doesn%27t-represent-exposure

Look in the second Lenrentals raw exposure post, if you haven’t already.

I am not following. In M with Auto-ISO mode, applying positive EC will increase ISO, not decrease it.

Your DR will not increase when lowering ISO if your exposure is constant.

Just read that , your findings 1/2 stop accuracy and yet you quote "if you are shooting RAW, it is worse - the histogram misleads when it comes to exposure of the highlights and shadows." misleading is not a word that describes your findings.
i have got the accuracy down to 1/10 of a stop. and depending what side of the in cameras 1/3 stop accuracy setting is totally irrelevant.
now where the zebras blow any histogram away for consistent accuracy is the ability to set them (70) lets say skin tones. to exactly the users required brightness level.

No.

No.

edit, there is no camera histogram images.

For some reason this constant implication, that science and the "real world" are separate entities needing to be related somehow, is bothering me.

For me, the degree of exposure is Hm lux-seconds and is equal to a constant x average scene luminance x shutter time / (f-number squared).

If my exposure turns out wrong, then one of those three variables was wrong, duh, and most if not all of the verbiage in this thread changes that not a whit ...

... in other words, estimate the light correctly, set the (shutter time / (f-number squared)) correctly and Bob's yer uncle and Fanny's yer aunt.

Everything else, JPEGs, zebras, histograms, metering, EC, na-ni-na, revolves around that simplicity. Which is why I like my always-in-manual Sigma SD9 ...

this is your article

On the same note, a histogram is also not very useful for evaluating the highlights in RAW - while the in-camera histogram for #2640 is dangerously close to the right wall, indicating essentially no headroom (not to mention that the whole frame is one solid "flashing area", indicating overexposure), the RAW has a headroom of slightly more than 1/2 of a stop before highlight clipping; at 1/2 only very few pixels are clipped, see fig. 4.

Respectfully I disagree.

You can:

1. Choose to slow down IF maximising the technical output from your sensor is your PRIMARY goal.
   OR
2. Choose a way of working that speeds you up, whilst understanding the trade-offs.

Sometimes nailing the shot in fluid environments trumps faffing about with various settings to put maximum light on your sensor for each scenario,, which might change in an instant that you cannot or don’t want to predict.

YMMV and that’s fine. But it doesn’t make you right and me wrong.

The one time in this thread where you posted an in-camera histogram and a raw file, it showed the in-camera histogram was quite far from the real raw histogram, particularly, as I remember, in the red channel. I posted the raw histogram and compared the two. If we had threaded view, I could probably find that post.

As I said earlier, I have not tested your camera, but I have tested the a7, a7II, a7R, a7RII, a7RIII, a7RIV, a9, and a9II. The in camera histograms of those are in the same inaccuracy ballpark as Nikon Z cameras and Fuji GFX ones.

Science is about understanding the behavior of the real world.

There is one for the X2D.

My article, and what you are quoting is about a neutral subject only, look at the text and the images above.
Means you need to re-read www.fastrawviewer.com/white-balance-as-per-channel-exposure-correction

And sometimes it’s about understanding the science and balancing that against what works best for your objectives in the real world.

I did test the a6300, and the in-camera histogram worked the same as the other Sony cameras I tested.