Why Don't Camera's Have Raw Histograms?

Elsewhere, I coined an acronym "SPV" (Standard Photographic Vague) to indicate such or similar talk.

Aah ... Hurter and Driffield ...

I can see the point of it. As a DSLR user who uses UniWB and a customized Picture Control to evaluate my Raw exposures, I would find using those to see a scene intolerable and even counterproductive. Since I have an OVF I have the option to view the framing of the shot through that. I just pulled the trigger on a lightly used (under 15,000 shutter actuations) D850 and I'm looking forward to using its Live View on my T/S lenses, so it will be interesting to see how that works in coordination with the aforementioned WB and Picture Controls (I should note here that while they aren't too bad on my D800, for whatever reason, the settings on my D500 that best reflect the Raw exposure are ghastly).

I too admired the principle of UniWB and installed it a la Guillermo Luijck on a Sigma SD10. Sadly, I found it difficult to interpret with the dim non-live 1.8" LCD and that horrible "Sports" OVF (pentaprism from their previous 35mm film camera with the outside greyed out to a 1.7 crop).

Mirror-less Live-View is so helpful these days. eh?

When working with T/S lenses I have found the D800 Live View helpful, the D500 much more so, and it's one of the reasons I'm looking forward to the D850.

You really should define what you mean by exposure and proper exposure because they clearly mean something different to you when compared to what they mean to me.

Nowadays proper exposure for many people means an image lightness they desire.

But I can output my desired image lightness without using the proper exposure* if less than optimal raw data for the image is acceptable.

The proper exposure* for me is putting as much light on the sensor as possible within my dof and blur requirements without clipping important highlights.

This maximises the quality of the raw data resulting in minimising visible noise in the final image.

I then set the proper image lightness in post.

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

Without defining latitude?

Substitute "results they are happy with" instead of exposure. Not everybody enjoys this game you insist on playing.

That is up to them.

I make no apology for making it clear what exposure means to me when I use it in sentences. That way there is no misunderstanding, especially if discussing exposure* related matters in a "beginners" environment.

Whether anyone then agrees with me or not is another matter.

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

That's the question.

And I answered it, so not sure what you mean.

It's not a particularly satisfying answer since it has a plug number that the user can define.

In the real world, optimal exposure is often tricky because of specularity.

And, to some extent, IMHO because of photon shot noise.

But now you are referring to achieving optimal exposure which was discussed recently.

I was simply defining exposure and optimal exposure as I use it in sentences in my posts.

This oft-repeated and all-encompassing statement is incorrect because it does not apply to many modern cameras.

Now you are just being stupid again because you are not practising what you preach :-D

In any case that is just an opinion which is your choice to have. The same issue was raised in another thread and it was explained by others why it is still acceptable.

It certainly is totally true for my cameras and so it is totally valid to include it in my posts to make it clear what I mean by exposure* when I use it in sentences.

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

It appears not to have sunk into your stupid head that I have ceased practicing what I preached long ago, but that is OK because the longer you spend typing your broken-record crap the less time we spend reading your endless drivel and the more time I can spend looking for something else to hit you with next. 😎

Looks to me like you're the only person left on the planet that doesn't know what exposure is.

You are providing further proof supporting my point at:

dprevived.com/t/why-is-so-much-nonsense-talked-about-telephoto-compression/3111/7/#post-42930 🤣🤣

Nope 😊 Exposure is the amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.

But there are many people who still have the misconception that exposure is how light or dark an image looks on the medium the image is being viewed on.