I posted both, nothing was faked, contrary to what you claimed, and all the markers were in place - which histogram was of raw data, and which was of embedded JPEG.
The view of embedded JPEG with its histogram was there to show that both the look of embedded JPEG and JPEG histogram are deceptive when it comes to raw, and the next screenshot, from the raw data in the same file, proves it.
Your Quote " Well, here is from one of raw files Donald posted for everyone to see:" you made a mistake ,get over it and move on.
JPEG is embedded into the raw. The mistake isn't mine, it's yours.
ARW files contain an embedded JPEG. FastRawViewer has an option to display embedded JPEGs together with their histograms.
[/quote]
OK, now it is clear. thank you, Iliah.
I've not used FRV because of the X3F thing.
you then proceeded to manipulate the jpeg not the raw, as Jim pointed out he had no problems with pulling back the highlights because he was working on the raw file i posted.
No. Enough, no?
Im devastated 😒 was taking the dog for a walk and looking over the islands, the sun shinning through the clouds and lighting up the water, so a ran home picked up my camera and came back to shoot some real worlds keeper shots. using the detailed histogram that i see on the LCD panel. but only to discover that i cant view them in the EVF 🤨🤷♀️😮😮 how disappointing, only the tiny little one is shown in the EVF. 😒anyway later i will see if i have the other screen layout turned off in my camera for the EVF.
Exactly :-)
DonaldB is a proven liar many times over on dprevived.
He has plagiarised another member's work and he has altered my posts in some of his quotes of them. He has a history of faking images to push whatever agenda he is pushing at the time.
He has zero credibility and it's really good to see more people are seeing the type of person he is :-)
I think we are in this thread to discuss technical matters.
That is gratuitous, and ad hominem.
But the fact is that what I said is true.
Everyone can see his posts and interpret them as they see fit which they are entitled to do, are they not ?
Well , im very happy with the test results (image is crap) from probably the most extreme conditions possible. i used the tiny evf histogram with the zebras that were ever so slightly flashing as i have the range set to "1" 109+
done with testing back to work tomorrow.
Sony a74
image link 1drv.ms/i/s!ArStsPjQ301PmTNT5joN5ktkuNkW?e=F2ZhoK
i placed the eye dropper on the brightest part of the 16 bit file
I did a similar test, though not nearly as rigorous, some time ago between the clipping shown on an OM-1 with that shown in Lightroom on raws. It showed the same difference of 1.67 stops. Coincidental or not, I don't know. I assumed the camera based its clipping on the jpeg EVF image and Lightroom on the raw image. Maybe my assumption was erroneous, but I wanted to know what headroom I had with raws.
The EVF histogram will be based on whatever the camera's settings are at the time. The camera might apply some highlight protection, noise reduction and will use the current 'picture style' and WB settings in the camera. All of these could be significantly different to what a raw converter app does to initially render raw data.
I know I can safely add 1/3 to 1/2 stop of exposure* from where my camera histogram indicates clipping before the raw data is actually clipped.
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.
You are still proving my point that you cannot even troll properly 🤣🤣😎
We'll just have to disagree on the definition of exposure*
Your funny and childish attempts to insult people have no effect except making you look weak, immature and stupid in my eyes 😍😍😎
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
** optimal exposure - the maximum exposure* within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.
*** under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlights.
One can't disagree on a definition of exposure, you simpleton. Don't you know how languages work? There is ONE proper definition for any given use of a word, DannoDoesntUnderstandGrammar. One is right. The others are lies.
Your definition of exposure is a lie.
Perhaps if you understood the correct definition of exposure you might be able to take better photos.
This is a lie because when my camera is in silent shutter mode light strikes the sensor while the shutter is open and that light does not contribute to the exposure.
@bobn2 how long are you going to let your top poster lie about exposure? Because I am pretty sure people are going to see this and decide they are better off at that other DPReview spin off, no matter how lame it is (and it's pretty bloody lame).
These two definitions are also LIES but I am not going to explain why until you admit that you are lying about the basic definition of exposure.
You are in no position to lecture anyone about photography and yet here you are. This is so lame. No wonder everyone on all the other forums laughs at DPRevived! This place is DOOMED unless the moderators learn about photography and grow a pair.
PS Stop lying about exposure. You are wasting all the time and money that the moderators have put into this site. Do you think they are paying just to get their butt kissed by you? But maybe that's what they like.
You are still proving my point 😍😎
