Raw Histogram??

shooting max ettr shifts the WB. i prefer just to shoot correct and lift shadows.theres very little dofference in shadow noise.

My main point edited out of the quote and my side-ref seized upon as a Straw Man, so ...

... 'bye

Cheers thanks Bob. i had read about per square meter for lumens, but couldnt get my head around per unit area. eg: sensor area 36x24mm 0.00091m2

Im going to shoot my doll in the studio with a black background. im going to fix exposure and raise iso and adjust ambient light (colour corrected LED)and compare what the live histograms and taken image histograms look like. i will also fix the iso and lighting and float the exposure to see if there is any difference in WB as well as the raw histograms in FRV.

forget about iso being acurate across cameras, whats worst is F vers T stops 🤨

Suppose you fixed the exposure (light, aperture, shutter speed) in such a way that the histogram touches the right edge at ISO 12800. How much quality is lost if you shoot at the same exposure with the camera set to ISO 1600?

When exposure is already maximized, and you are above ISO 1600, how much does it matter if the histogram doesn't touch the right edge?

will do that test .

Area doesn't have to be specified in MKS units. You could specify it in square mm, square um, or even square nm, as well as acres, sections, and square furlongs.

My lighting could only range from 1600 to 8000 just clipping both hisograms. in reallity its that close it doesnt really matter . the 1600 image shows a fraction less noise in the shadows but thats looking a 2000%.

Some may find it useful to look at the tonal distribution presented as a histogram but really, don't most of us just want our cameras to reliably tell us when our raws, not jpegs, are blown. Why is it so hard?

Fix the exposure (including lights) so that at ISO 8000 the histogram touches the right edge. Shoot at ISO 8000, ISO 1600, ISO 800 changing nothing but ISO setting.

Quite so! Back in the day, I greatly preferred slugs which tended to get rid of the dreaded gravitational constant.

And it's good to see someone expressing his lighting in what can only be foot candles 😋

1drv.ms/f/s!ArStsPjQ301PmT6wQmCjrXSr0Ntv?e=hTravd

That is because the camera's meter is actually an image lightness and not exposure* meter. Image lightness and exposure* are two different things.

Camera meters are calibrated to output an average 18% grey image lightness for the exposure* that is set.

In manual mode with a fixed aperture and shutter speed raising iso by 1 stop after the meter needle was centred will shift the needle 1 stop to the right because you are lightening the image by 1 stop without altering the exposure*.

* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.

well that showed my eye af works to -3.5 ev 😁 going to resend fixed focus images .

well that showed my eye af works to -3.5 ev 😁 going to resend fixed focus images .

1drv.ms/f/s!ArStsPjQ301PmUK89WLv9AMn10bl?e=TBOaeT

Awesome test, they all look identical processed to the same brightness. DPR test subject hasnt a patch on my doll 😁