You are proving my earlier point :-)
During our mediation session I described you as a troll and this thread as a troll thread and you were described by someone else as being harmless.
Combining the two it is fair to say you are a harmless troll because from your behaviour on this thread there is little chance any beginner will take you seriously :-)
That's not what I meant.
You are paying attention to the wrong thing. Forget the EV scale. You don't need to understand it to understand how to use RD to check exposure, and you are drawing the wrong conclusions from it.
Scene with Z7:
Lr histo with default settings:
[
(/a/MWhw0zpzWY6Zx5EZm8QB0DEaIz8vg35EGvX133DMN5Ns7eecyWSp62O9j9HjUc5x/3791/?shva=1)
RawDigger Histo:
Lr histo looks like the exposure is blown. RD histo show that it's a long way from being blown. The Z7 is among the worst cameras I've dealt with recently in this regard.
My thread title was clear and simple. i didnt turn it into what it is. Not that i mind but a guy has been removed and he made the most sensiblwe comment of all to my question.
his quote: As a recent convert to Sony, the blinkies or "Zebras" fine tuned to C1 "Lower Limit 109+" are about as perfect as it gets for shooting raw on the fly that I've seen from any brand so far.
You are totally correct but you need to keep on mind DonaldB is focussing on the wrong thing because he believes as long as the image lightness is acceptable then the exposure is ok even if it is not optimal.
I'm just posting what was said during our mediation and how I see it :-)
the lightroom histogram is not blown at all. and what EV values were set on the RD histogram ?
Neither is.
Im also a bit annoyed that some of my posts have been removed refuring to the position of the EV0, all i got was its 3 stops down from clipping , what sort of an answer is that ? you can move it where you want 🤨
You are not telling the truth there at all.
You got replies quoting from the manual and you were even given the page number to go to.
That's right, EV 0 is not relevant, the clipping threshold is normally 3 stops to the right of where"EV 0" on the scale is normally positioned. Look at any extremely overexposed image with RawDigger, wherever the line piles up on the right is the clipping threshold - anything at that line is toast.. With a not-overexposed image, the distance (in EVs) from the right side of the rightmost histogram to that same clipping point is how much more you could have exposed without clipping highlight detail.It's really not that complicated
checkmate. in camera settings from a guy that has been deleted from these forums.
image i just took.
No, it's sorta kinda like "more perfect" as ideal and perfect are closely related and often used in the same sense such as: an ideal choice or a perfect choice. Since forums are too often reduced to petty and long drawn-out disagreements over the meaning or correctness of words, let's put this to rest now because it's easy. This minor controversy arose from Nikon's statement: "Although this method [HE/HE* (High Efficiency) compressed] uses a non-reversible algorithm similar to compressed mode, the result is a smaller file size while maintaining the same quality [as compressed mode], effectively making this more ideal solution."
The use of "more ideal" is not simply nonsense. You absolutely can compare things to words representing standards like ideal and perfect — in fact, they are words which invite comparison. I previously provided a link with examples of writers using "more ideal" and I'll share a couple of those examples, but let me start with a well known use of "more perfect" first, simply because it's so well known: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union — the beginning words of the U.S. Constitution. Below are samples of the use of "more ideal" (something which is closer to an ideal form, state, model, etc.) from the link I provided:
"Still the Politicus contains a higher and more ideal conception of politics than any other of Plato's writings." — Introduction and Analysis to Statesman by Plato
"Probably no composer has ever had more ideal circumstances for artistic inspiration and expression than had Orlando." — Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 16, entry for composer Lasso (Lassus), Orlando [Orlande de Lassus]
There are numerous examples of "more ideal" contained in writers' works spanning centuries, but this little episode of let's mock Nikon for their choice of words is long past its bedtime and should be gently rocked to sleep. 😴
You can investigate the use of "very unique" on your own here if you're interested. 😏
Ignore this post.
I just wanted to be the 500th, yes 500th post in this thread :-)
And DonaldB still doesn’t get it!! :-)
All good fun mate. i took the advice from another member and did some test shots with his in camera settings then i re calibrated the camera exposure settings and BOOOOOOM camera histogram and zebras match the raw file well as close as could be, took 500 posts. Im going out now to shoot some images and reset my camera back to what im used to as the original settings give 1/2 stop leeway.
Enjoy your day and hopefully one day you will understand the potential benefits of maximising the quality of the raw data allowing images of higher quality to be created compared to sooc jpegs.
Again, you’re not looking at RAW histograms here.This is the RAW file AFTER your editor has processed it. This histogram here doesn’t tell you anything about RAW exposure. It might very well look similar to what you see in RawDigger, but it could easily appear to be under or overexposed as well. That’s the point, it’s not representative of the RAW file and never will be.
Frankly, if your images are clean enough, the highlights look good with some adjustment, and they generally look good overall (from what I’ve seen, they do), I would say that enough is going right with your exposures and maybe you might want consider taking a pass on some of the finer points of RAW exposure. Folks have producing great images for nearly 200 years without ever seeing a RAW histogram.
