But that should have been the very first question you asked instead of the total nonsense/garbage you posted in your original post.
You undeniably had no idea at all of what a raw histogram was when you made that post.
You try to create an illusion that you are a professional photographer and then you shot yourself in the foot big time with your original post.
but it comes up looking much better when a little more pop/punch is added to it. You posted the original image in another thread
as i said the punch line is yet to come . look a bit closer at the 2 histograms i posted at the start and you may or my not see anything of importance.
Your question asking which of those 2 histograms is a raw histogram was answered by multiple members.
one was the raw file histogram in ACR and the other was the saved psd file from the same raw file.
Too late, the raw data of that image was created and written to your memory card after you pressed the shutter button.
But it's very simple to explain actually. If you need more information for postprocessing - that is, a cleaner image with less noise, so that you can do tonal adjustments without posterisation, banding or increased noise - you need to maximise the exposure. Light = information, more light = more information and cleaner image.
So the exposure has to be maximised but not to the point when the highlight clipping occurs. Clipped highlights = loss of information again.
I shoot out of camera i alway have a 7inch field monitor atached and i nail the shot for the look im after dont care about clipping but the exposure im after .clipping has nothing to do with anything unless im shooting on a white backdrop in my studio. but evven then it doesnt matter because ive been using the same settings for 4 years.
just did that test . might have benn more important 10 years ago but not now.
i just took 2 images 1 in camera ev0 and another ev+.7 took the raws into ACR and increased ev image 1 by 1/3 stop and decreased image 2 buy 1/3 stop. here are the 2 histograms .
[
ok, at least now you realise why neither of your 2 histograms in your op is a raw histogram when you originally claimed one of them was.
The histogram displayed in ACR is not of the actual raw data but of the dataset created after the raw data was demosaiced, had white balance applied to it and mapped to the working colour space you have set in your ACR.
makes no difference what program you look at the raw on. why does it matter still remains.
[
(/a/RuGgRLiYEqiKk7usTKOLGmnxDy6pQBImJJAJNbc3ZmiVsjaYrBIZe5kw0pqotcmb/4289/?shva=1)
No, it doesn't still remain. The benefits of maximising the exposure* and using raw histograms to help identify when raw data is being clipped has been explained multiple times in your own thread.
* 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.
my eyes are much better than yours at maximizing my exposure
The definition of exposure you use is different to the definition of exposure* I use.
* 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.
Why it matters does not still remain.
You yourself came to the conclusion that it doesn't matter for you when you said
You're now just going round in circles now trolling 🤣
If it doesn't matter to you that is fine as it is your choice to make. Other people prefer to maximise the quality of the raw data so that potentially they can output better quality final images than sooc jpegs. That is their choice to make and you seem to be struggling to cope with that 🙂
your getting out of your depth here. i have always used a 7 inch field monitor. it has extremely detailed histograms/ blinkies. i can measure down to 0.01 of a stop with my monitor attached to my a74 in fact its as accurate as any computer software that i have just compared it to using a raw image ( are raws really raw ?) people complain that incamera histograms are useless have no idea. wanting companies to put raw histograms in cameras does not have any advantage for my sony a74 it might if you dont own a quality camera but not for me. Now as my thread title read.
Maybe some people have but I have always posted that in my experience the camera's histogram is a close approximation of the raw histogram
Your title reads "Raw histogram and why does it matter" and in your original post you asked -
"2 screen shots which one is the raw and why does it matter"
but neither of your histograms is a raw histogram which clearly proves you had no idea at all what a raw histogram even is when you started this thread.
The first question you should have asked instead of making a fool of yourself, especially since you claim to be a professional photographer, is
"What is a raw histogram and why does it matter?"
instead of pretending you knew what you were talking about when you actually had no clue as proven by those 2 histograms in your original post.
plugging in a field monitor into a camera like mine is like plugging in an oscilloscope into the output stage of a radio transmitter and tuning up the finals for maximum power output and balancing up the audio signal modulation to 100% if you dont want to clip the modulation you tune it back a little. the best part of a field monitor is it doesnt clip at the ends it keeps reading the signal. also where do you think the ends of the histogram are in the camera in comparison to the raw file or a field monitor ? the best thing about a field monitor is you can actually balance the image brightness very accurately because it reads beyond clipping both ends and its live, computer software is not live . do yours self a favor and go buy a field monitor and find out yourself IN THE FIELD.
I wish you two guys could learn to explore the subject co-operatively rather than going at it hammer and tongs. There is some interesting stuff being revealed in your debate, but the animosity and partial trolling makes for painful reading for the uninvolved. Do you have to keep winding one another up? It's like you need an independent marriage counsellor 🙂
You can see why that internet joke originated "yes dear, I'll be down for dinner soon, but there's someone wrong on internet I got to fix first"
At some point one or other of you is going to have to recognise you are not going to fix the other by continuing to try. It's futile....
Now if one of you could summarise the findings of the debate in one wrap-up post, that would be really useful.
Yep, as I said earlier, you're going round in circles now trolling so my reply is the same
