Your quote: It is typically positioned at -3 EV relative to where the clipping threshold is.
which is 12.5% grey calculated from YOUR image.
-
-
It saddens me that, after hundreds of posts on the subject, that this is almost completely wrong. If you want to check exposure, you can ignore the EV scale and just look at clipping or lack of same. RD will let you know if you've made the correct exposure for the ISO setting you've chosen. ACR is a terrible way to detirmine what the correct raw exposure is.
I don't think we'll ever reach closure in this thread.
-
it saddens me that you cant post an image to prove your theory
-
Its even more depressing that this has been shown to you many times and you just ignore them all.
I should have left this thread when you referred to many in this post as students when the teacher should have taken the 1 hundreds of post telling you otherwise
-
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂😂
RD is set for 12.5% that 12.5% is calculated from the image in question and positions EVO there.
-
I think it's pretty clear why DonaldB still doesn't get it after 100s of posts.
He has made it clear, either in this thread or others, that he is mainly a sooc shooter and that is fine.
It also appears that his idea of exposure is simply just how light or dark an image looks, nothing more nothing less.
As long as the image lightness is acceptable and highlights are not clipped then he is happy.
All that is fine and many photographers are the same as it is their choice to make. But DonaldB not being a raw shooter is struggling to understand and cope with the fact that by maximising the quality of the raw data it is possible to create images of higher quality than sooc jpegs.
He also clearly has misconceptions about raw histograms, the information displayed and how RawDigger works.
Until he accepts there are potentially additional benefits when processing raw data compared to sooc jpegs this thread will continue to go round in circles.
-
What's the reason to pay attention to EV0 when trying to determine if you got the exposure right? It's obviously confusing you. Just ignore it.
-
It isn't.
-
there isnt a reason as exposure is subjective and Illiah 12.5% is also subjective because majority use 18%
-
I know its 12.4999 % so my bad you are correct in your statement 🙄
-
You are proving my earlier point :-)
During our mediation session I described you as a troll and this thread as a troll thread and you were described by someone else as being harmless.
Combining the two it is fair to say you are a harmless troll because from your behaviour on this thread there is little chance any beginner will take you seriously :-)
-
That's not what I meant.
-
You are paying attention to the wrong thing. Forget the EV scale. You don't need to understand it to understand how to use RD to check exposure, and you are drawing the wrong conclusions from it.
-
Scene with Z7:
Lr histo with default settings:
[
]
(/a/MWhw0zpzWY6Zx5EZm8QB0DEaIz8vg35EGvX133DMN5Ns7eecyWSp62O9j9HjUc5x/3791/?shva=1)RawDigger Histo:
Lr histo looks like the exposure is blown. RD histo show that it's a long way from being blown. The Z7 is among the worst cameras I've dealt with recently in this regard.
-
My thread title was clear and simple. i didnt turn it into what it is. Not that i mind but a guy has been removed and he made the most sensiblwe comment of all to my question.
his quote: As a recent convert to Sony, the blinkies or "Zebras" fine tuned to C1 "Lower Limit 109+" are about as perfect as it gets for shooting raw on the fly that I've seen from any brand so far. -
You are totally correct but you need to keep on mind DonaldB is focussing on the wrong thing because he believes as long as the image lightness is acceptable then the exposure is ok even if it is not optimal.
-
I'm just posting what was said during our mediation and how I see it :-)
-
the lightroom histogram is not blown at all. and what EV values were set on the RD histogram ?
