Why Don't Camera's Have Raw Histograms?

Maybe it is sooc but it probably isn't with your track record of not telling the truth.

But if it is sooc, all that image does is provide further proof of my point #2 earlier.

"I have also posted on numerous occasions that with today's modern cameras and with a large enough supply of bananas you can train a monkey to take a nice looking sooc jpeg in good light. The raw file you posted was of a scene in good light."

Point #5 described a better test image but you have never posted one because it will clearly show the benefits of raw over sooc jpeg.

Come on Bob process the raw and compare it to the jpeg i posted. post your processed raw.

But how can anyone be sure the jpeg is not processed from raw already?

And how do you plan to judge the merits of any edits since you do not profile your monitor and calibrate it only by your eyes?

come on Dunno, your kidding arnt you, everyone knows how to look that up.

Now you are being totally naive or totally stupid because it would take me, or anyone else, no more than a few minutes to download that jpeg or any other image you post and change the exif to make it appear to be sooc when in reality it might be processed from raw or an edited sooc jpeg.

In any case just for a bit of fun. My monitor is calibrated to 80cd/m2 and profiled using a Spyder from Datacolor.

This version looks very much better on my screen than the original does.

YMMV 😄

😂🤣😂

dont you use the tools in photoshop to see how far out your colours are ?

On my screen the colours look pretty much what I would expect but obviously I wasn't there at the time of the shot.

The colours can be easily adjusted to whatever you would like them to be.

As I said, on my screen the version I posted looks very much better than the original you posted and obviously since your screen is not profiled and calibrated only by eye I would be very surprised if the colours look exactly the same on your screen as they do on mine.

I'm using ACR with Photoshop Elements and the Elements XXL plugin

On my screen the colours look pretty much what I would expect but obviously I wasn't there at the time of the shot.

The colours can be easily adjusted to whatever you would like them to be.

As I said, on my screen the version I posted looks very much better than the original you posted and obviously since your screen is not profiled and calibrated only by eye I would be very surprised if the colours look exactly the same on your screen as they do on mine.

but you can sample the white on the dog in acr from the raw image and 4800 is near perfect from the day light i had shot the image. your image on all my screens even my new tablet which has beautiful colour , your image has a yellow cast and the histogram shows this on your image. i use grey patches to calibrate my monitor's.

this is your whites

Your histogram and my histogram are pretty much the same.

The "sooc" jpeg you posted has a slight blue cast on my screen.

The most likely reason for the different colours we are each seeing is because our monitors are setup differently. That is an issue with displaying images online. The image can look great on the creator's screen but the creator has no control whatsoever how that image will render and look on the screen of anyone viewing the image online.

This little exercise we have just gone through is clear evidence of that.

If I was standing next to you when you opened my version it is very possible I could agree with you about the colours not being right even though they look correct on my screen. That would be due to the different calibration/profiling/setups of our monitors.

this is what grey looks like this sample is from the forum boarder.

I can make the whites whatever colour you like so I don't see your point. I don't know how close to pure white the dog's fur was.