perfect. because i had the slightest of zebras flashing.
perfect. because i had the slightest of zebras flashing.
@IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:for the record the histogram
116K green pixels clipped?
perfect. because i had the slightest of zebras flashing.
No, because you've set the camera that way. Zebras are only an imperfect indicator.
It's quite typical for people that lack understanding to dismiss anything that exposes that lack as 'pedantry'. The point is simple. There was a miscommunication because the two of us understand the term 'ETTR' differently. You seem to think of it as any technique that gives a 'good exposure' (it would be nice to see a definition for that). I think it defines a technique, originally developed to maximise data levels, which actually ends up being one of several techniques that might increase exposure above ISO nominal. There are several others, some more effective IMO.
Totally agree
I'm missing something but never say what. It's somewhat frustrating.
😂🤣Now your finally getting how they drive up post numbers 😁
Jims reply from another post is a good example
It think that's entirely situational. If I were faced with the kinds of assignments that you are, I might do pretty much the same as you do (although I think I'd probably use lower ISOs in dim light).
If you were doing the kind of work I do, you might work more like me. 🤨
what kind of work😵💫
@DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:for the record the histogram
116K green pixels clipped?
perfect. because i had the slightest of zebras flashing.
No, because you've set the camera that way. Zebras are only an imperfect indicator.
oh no i didnt, i took the image based on the histogram not the zebras 😁 i only checked the zebras,
so the histogram is NOT recorded from the jpeg file. you guys got it all wrong.
@DavidMillier has written:I'm missing something but never say what. It's somewhat frustrating.
😂🤣Now your finally getting how they drive up post numbers 😁
Jims reply from another post is a good example
It think that's entirely situational. If I were faced with the kinds of assignments that you are, I might do pretty much the same as you do (although I think I'd probably use lower ISOs in dim light).
If you were doing the kind of work I do, you might work more like me. 🤨
what kind of work😵💫
so the histogram is NOT recorded from the jpeg file. you guys got it all wrong.
Hilarious! Especially when "NOT" is in caps, unlike the rest of the text ...
@DonaldB has written: @DavidMillier has written:I'm missing something but never say what. It's somewhat frustrating.
😂🤣Now your finally getting how they drive up post numbers 😁
Jims reply from another post is a good example
It think that's entirely situational. If I were faced with the kinds of assignments that you are, I might do pretty much the same as you do (although I think I'd probably use lower ISOs in dim light).
If you were doing the kind of work I do, you might work more like me. 🤨
what kind of work😵💫
Nice work Jim.
@DonaldB has written:so the histogram is NOT recorded from the jpeg file. you guys got it all wrong.
Hilarious! Especially when "NOT" is in caps, unlike the rest of the text ...
It is isnt it. I think the camera manufactures know what they are doing. raw histogram requests 🤣😂
what a fluke stumbling upon the larger histogram on my sony cameras . i never use that screen.
@IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:for the record the histogram
116K green pixels clipped?
perfect. because i had the slightest of zebras flashing.
No, because you've set the camera that way. Zebras are only an imperfect indicator.
oh no i didnt, i took the image based on the histogram not the zebras 😁 i only checked the zebras,
so the histogram is NOT recorded from the jpeg file. you guys got it all wrong.
Now take a shot of a bunch of red flowers "based on the histogram" just like you did for that prior shot and post the screen grabs for the in-camera live histogram and the Fast Raw Viewer histograms of the flower shot just like you did for the prior shot.
Now take a shot of a bunch of red flowers "based on the histogram" just like you did for that prior shot and post the screen grabs for the in-camera live histogram and the Fast Raw Viewer histograms of the flower shot just like you did for the prior shot.
Or even better, deep blue flowers.
😂🤣Now your finally getting how they drive up post numbers 😁
'They' don't have to do much, Don. You make a sterling contribution. Thanks.
@DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:for the record the histogram
116K green pixels clipped?
perfect. because i had the slightest of zebras flashing.
No, because you've set the camera that way. Zebras are only an imperfect indicator.
oh no i didnt, i took the image based on the histogram not the zebras 😁 i only checked the zebras,
so the histogram is NOT recorded from the jpeg file. you guys got it all wrong.Now take a shot of a bunch of red flowers "based on the histogram" just like you did for that prior shot and post the screen grabs for the in-camera live histogram and the Fast Raw Viewer histograms of the flower shot just like you did for the prior shot.
did that yesterday a red lunch box and a yellow leaf.
Btw red flowers are mid tones 😂🤣
@knickerhawk has written:Now take a shot of a bunch of red flowers "based on the histogram" just like you did for that prior shot and post the screen grabs for the in-camera live histogram and the Fast Raw Viewer histograms of the flower shot just like you did for the prior shot.
Or even better, deep blue flowers.
Im a flower shooter. deep blue flowers 😂🤣
@IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:for the record the histogram
116K green pixels clipped?
perfect. because i had the slightest of zebras flashing.
No, because you've set the camera that way. Zebras are only an imperfect indicator.
oh no i didnt, i took the image based on the histogram not the zebras
Which histogram failed you? Are you saying that clipping isn't because you set the camera to clip but because some histogram tricked you? Maybe let's have a look at the raw file...
@knickerhawk has written:Now take a shot of a bunch of red flowers "based on the histogram" just like you did for that prior shot and post the screen grabs for the in-camera live histogram and the Fast Raw Viewer histograms of the flower shot just like you did for the prior shot.
Or even better, deep blue flowers.
Either would do just fine but I suggested red flowers because they're easier to find and DXOMark indicates that the red channel is weaker than the blue channel in the A6300. Donald is already avoiding the request, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
the histogram is aligned with the raw file not jpeg as everyone seems to think
It isn't, see how the red channel peaks in highlights for JPEG and in midtones for raw.
@DonaldB has written: @DavidMillier has written:I'm missing something but never say what. It's somewhat frustrating.
😂🤣Now your finally getting how they drive up post numbers 😁
Jims reply from another post is a good example
It think that's entirely situational. If I were faced with the kinds of assignments that you are, I might do pretty much the same as you do (although I think I'd probably use lower ISOs in dim light).
If you were doing the kind of work I do, you might work more like me. 🤨
what kind of work😵💫
Beautiful photos Jim.
I'll take looking at good photos over discussing theory all day long. :)