Scene luminance has nothing to do with exposure.

It's astounding the sheer number of options available in the GIMP, even with no add-ons.

I use it mainly for analysis but layers and masks are extremely useful when messing around ...

exiftool -g0:2 -"CircleOfConfusion"  /Volumes/EOS_DIGITAL/DCIM/100CANON/IMG_4277.CR3  
---- Composite:Camera ----
Circle Of Confusion             : 0.030 mm

exiftool -g0:2 -"CircleOfConfusion" -DOF -FOV  /Volumes/EOS_DIGITAL/DCIM/100CANON/IMG_4277.CR3
---- Composite:Camera ----
Circle Of Confusion             : 0.030 mm
---- Composite:Image ----
Depth Of Field                  : 0.22 m (11.40 - 11.62 m)
Field Of View                   : 3.7 deg

exiftool -g0:2 -"MeasuredEV*" -"exposure*" -ISO -Fnumber /Volumes/EOS_DIGITAL/DCIM/100CANON/IMG_4277.CR3
---- EXIF:Image ----
Exposure Time                   : 1/160
F Number                        : 9.0
ISO                             : 12800
---- EXIF:Camera ----
Exposure Program                : Not Defined
Exposure Mode                   : Auto
---- MakerNotes:Image ----
Measured EV                     : 6.00
Exposure Compensation           : -2/3
Measured EV 2                   : -2.5
---- MakerNotes:Camera ----
Exposure Level Increments       : 1/3 Stop

it was about 50 times you just dont accept you dont know everything.

no you dont your an m43 shooter

I was expecting a somewhat more on topic response, with examples proving your point of view.

no one said its from raw . please read every post again. its as close to raw as you can get , which part dont you or anyone eles understand

revisit the other 1000 posts to re familiarize yourself.

So, you can't offer factual proof.

Translation for readers of English:

I think your problem is that you are a conspiracy theorist and believe that everyone is lying to you, but it is actually the other way around.

I shoot mostly with Nikon, Leica, and Hasselblads, but enjoy using other brands as well.
I just returned from a 5 weeks trip in Europe where I used only a6600. Looking forward to the upgrade in a month, though.

I even posted images here in Sony APS-C forum.

I do get it. I currently use a metering mode that protects highlights but leaves 1-2 stops of unused headroom depending on the scene. As good as I can get with my camera and shooting considerations. I'd just like a more direct means to assess blown highlights, one that is directly associated with the measurements being blown. Based on IRE, Sony zebras wouldn't be it.

Very simple to put my area that I have selected to be as close to white without clipping in the raw file, Most of the time this is done using the cameras metering system ( that is calibrated for raw shooting) or by an handheld meter with an +ec for raw.
To do this I measure the scene luminance

This is not done on someone with a dark complexation, or light, not on middle grey those are set by processing

What am I to gather from from these 2 histograms of the same image?

thats the thing. my camera histogram matches the raw histogram using fast raw viewer not just the zebras. But the zebras are far more accurate
unless you use a 3x jewellers glass to view the tiny camera histogram. as fas a i know sony is the only camera system that has raw accurate tools.

i dont know what your looking at.

This was disproved.

Didn't find any promise of "raw accurate tools" in Sony manuals.

[deleted]

Sony IRE zebras, Nikon highlight-weighted matrix metering, Fuji Natural Live View, all just coarse approximations to get closer to an ETTR exposure strategy.

Thing is, exposure itself for me isn't some precise science, in practice it's mostly a scene-by-scene compromise. With that in mind, I'm finding the combination of the Z 6's highlight-weighted matrix metering and its oh-so-capable sensor let me do what I need, get highlight-preserving captures on the fly and just lift the shadows in post. Oh, and IBIS lets me hand-hold down to 1/10sec, so generally more light through the aperture hole in a relatively dim scene.

No one who knows what they're talking about has said that the in-camera histogram is not accurate for the camera's conversion or a default conversion. It is BASED on the camera's conversion parameters, so how could it be wrong for that purpose? What it doesn't show you is what is going on in the raw data, and depending on the camera and WB and ISO setting, the amount of raw headroom can vary tremendously. If you want to venture safely into those extended raw highlights, then you would want a raw histogram; not a default conversion histogram.