Raw histogram and why does it matter

tell me what settings need to be changed on my camera given you have the raw file ?

\
Been told to you several times
dprevived.com/t/raw-histogram-and-why-does-it-matter/1848/post/15827/

this image is not 4 stops underexposed it is perfectly exposed. it has basically no adjustments.

Colors can be clipped outside of neutral or something that is not white weird that you don't know this

And you do realize that what your are trying to show is nothing more than where a color falls within a values of 0,0,0 to 255,255,255 in a given color space and not what is contained within a raw file

Other than the hidden adjustments being done without you know so then yes, but if you use RD you would know what adjustments are being done without your knowledge.

this shows "0"EV can you not see that ?

Has anyone considered that this may be a wind up? Lots of it in DPReview forums, perhaps it has migrated here. If it is not then I apologise to the OP. Ken

Hi Ken what does EV mean ?

I am so over this, everyone do yourself a favour and read this.

www.dpreview.com/articles/6641165460/ettr-exposed

Yup maybe you should
"Rather generally, RawDigger is a very useful resource for gaining meaningful information in relation to shooting ETTR. With RawDigger you can see the actual raw histograms and see exactly how closely you have achieved ETTR."

"White balance also affects the histograms, sometimes resulting in a story that differs greatly from that of the underlying raw-data histograms and therefore potentially providing misleading information for ETTR."

Yup covered it here

dprevived.com/t/raw-histogram-and-why-does-it-matter/1848/post/14901/

"The amount of highlight headroom varies from camera to camera, and you will have to experiment with your camera to determine whether you have 2-2/3, 3, or even more EV of headroom. You can determine this amount quite accurately by using software like Rawdigger"

Yup covered it again here

dprevived.com/t/raw-histogram-and-why-does-it-matter/1848/post/14901/

This is what is hidden to you with the raw converters with the BLE and other processing
and the last quote

"And it provides accurate feedback about the efficacy of your ETTR techniques. It is, therefore, highly recommended software for any raw shooter wanting to perfect using ETTR."
I have and others have been saying this all along

I don't think you even read what you linked to
and certainly not anything people have been telling you here

conclusion: thanks for the discussion but needed to know how good my studio exposures were using another program.
I will not be adjusting my work flow because my images show "PERFECT EXPOSURE" using the in camera A74 histogram.
If you want to debate it further then dont include me. as im now brain dead after a record 230 posts 😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫

my go to histogram fast stone.

yes i was referring ev on the raw digger histogram as the figure "0" and after reading the info on there site and at DPR i was right as the histogram is in Photographic mode. or whatever it is.

Your raw data was 2 stops underexposed as shown by the histogram you posted.

If that meets your definition of "perfect exposure" that's fine as it is your choice to make but my definition of perfect exposure is the optimal exposure** which is clearly different to your definition.

* exposure - amount of light striking the sensor per unit area while the shutter is 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.

That question has already been answered so not sure why you are asking again.

I don't have the raw file but we have the raw histogram for that raw file that you posted.

How you add that 2 stops is up to you. If had, you would have ended up with higher quality raw data than what you did and less visible noise.

your assumption is wrong there is no 16000 past "0" EV is clipping

I was referring to the histogram you posted below

and you knew I was referring to that histogram because you posted it in your reply to my post at

dprevived.com/t/raw-histogram-and-why-does-it-matter/1848/post/15814/

So to summarise what I posted:

sorry mate that was from another image. im referring to the dancer i posted with the accompanying histogram. i sent a link to Ian so he could have a play with the image of the dancer not the other one was just a selfie of me .
sorry for the confusion ,its hard with the forum configuration as to what im posting to, its getting a bit confusing.