Scene luminance has nothing to do with exposure.

A histogram is a frequency count of either the individual rgb values (RGB histogram) or a frequency count of the luminosity of each pixel. Either way, the histogram data for "dark" pixels will be towards the left of the histogram.

On a histogram there is no way to tell where in the image any data point came from as shown in

What Is Happening Under The Histogram Hood

Or perhaps your image is just another example of your proven history of fudging images to suit the agenda you are pushing at the time 😁😁😎

Either way it doesn't matter because:

Your false logic, findings and blatant lies have already been proven in multiple threads by multiple people so I have no need to provide further proof to what has already been posted.

I can guarantee you 100% that Sony engineers will also tell you your camera's histogram is not a raw histogram.

For a given scene your camera's histogram will vary according to the WB and colour space settings you set which proves your camera's histogram cannot possibly be a raw histogram.

show me where i said its a raw histogram

Its pixel dust 🤣

Raw histogram and why does it matter

Or are you now agreeing that your camera's histogram is not a raw histogram?

a question for you how many stops is equal to 1 horizontal pixel ?

Or perhaps your image is just another example of your proven history of fudging images to suit the agenda you are pushing at the time 😁😁😎

Either way it doesn't matter because:

Your false logic, findings and blatant lies have already been proven in multiple threads by multiple people so I have no need to provide further proof to what has already been posted.

I can guarantee you 100% that Sony engineers will also tell you your camera's histogram is not a raw histogram.

For a given scene your camera's histogram will vary according to the WB and colour space settings you set which proves your camera's histogram cannot possibly be a raw histogram.

Or are you now agreeing that your camera's histogram is not a raw histogram?

no one knows what the histogram is, as i said to Ian on a private measage. you woudnt now if it was a manipulated raw or a manipulated jpeg.
but the fact remains its not a straightout of camera jpeg. and the answer to my ohter question to you is there is 9 pixels 27 colours per 1/3 stop
so its to hard to get a precise pixel per pixel match. but its close enough for the purpose.

I heard that Samsung has a new monitor that is infused with uranium for the HDR viewing anything above 255 and it starts to kick in.
But it is recommended that you limit your exposure to only REL of 50 to 100 mSv

this is 1/3 stop exposure comp difference

](/a/EAGgDuC3sDulfXfnBXdv7EyfIa4726miZIwewE4dE2e5JtpVAIzmoaYzfYtwEi6c/12370/?shva=1)

Depends on white balance and dominating colour in the scene, and raw data processing applied before displaying a histogram.

Referring to camera / converter histograms as a proof of something about raw doesn't work without accurate tests and presentation of the results.

As I said, the only way you can prove your method is by presenting a series of shots, raw, sequential, of a variety of scenes, indoors, outdoors, day, evening, including strongly coloured objects, taken in conditions that don't limit exposure (tripod, studio lights, etc. ) that are all exposed to the right. That's testing. What you are doing is not.

Basically, if you don't need/want a raw histogram (or think you don't need it), it's totally up to you. You can continue with the exposure guesswork. Others want/need raw histograms. One of the reasons why is that we want to be 100% sure about our exposure.

One thing that very few people can do is to manipulate a raw from a consumer camera and leave no traces.

Mission Accomplished!! 😊😊😊😎

Now it's back to

You have mis read my post. manipulated raw in camera to produce the data for the histogram.

work tomorrow, but will carry on with the testing tuesday. with other tests as you say its not complete by any tecknical means . its quite funny the hostogram is so small and having to use a jewelers loupe and my 4x microscope objective to even see the the thing 😁

😁🤣😵‍💫😜🤨😎
I was going to post my histogram in the thread "has anyone taken a photo of sometning you cant explain" 😁

Is that really, really the best you can come up with? 🤣🤣🤣

Even Ghundred and Porky made far better attempts at trolling and they are both Troll School dropouts 😄😄

You will have to come up with much better than that lame effort if you need to be taken seriously as a troll.

In any case, attacking the DannoLeftForums account without knowing who is actually sitting at the DannoLeftForums keyboard makes you look weak, impotent and stupid to me because attacking an anonymous account name like you are trying to do here has no effect at all on anybody in real life 😄😃.

Let's see what else ya got in your trolling school bag to try to attack account names 😎😎.

It might make you eligible for Troll School 😉

Give it ya best shot 😂😂😎

Typing on phones and not bothering to check before posting is more common. It makes life more easy for the poster and less easy for the reader.
Don