Raw histogram and why does it matter

i have to shoot my self all the time as no one is game to otherwise 😎
The Don
[]
(/a/KsjzvNUysYryJnkKw87RRqDgVyRes8gCRS99jUuuf7JbtyxXD4Z1WyE0wMN14v5q/3402/?shva=1)

"Just a flesh wound"

this is the guy ive got to look out for

This raw histogram shows the red are 2 stopped underexposed, the greens 1 stop underexposed, the blues about 1.5 stops underexposed.

The ACR histogram data is pushed to the right side.

After adding 1 stop of exposure the raw histogram shows the reds, blues and greens pretty close to optimally exposed. The ACR histogram shows clipping but the actual raw data is not clipped as can be seen in the raw histogram.

Opening the optimally exposed raw file in ACR and lowering the image lightness by 1 stop results in an image with the same image lightness but the visible noise is reduced, due to the increased SNR, compared to the underexposed raw.

That is the main benefit of using raw histograms for me.

Im just not answering, i can make my RD histogram look like that as well without even changing the image 🙄

What are those peaks at the right side of the green histograms on the optimal exposure? Looks like clipping.

post a link of the converted raw image and i will compare it to an unprocessed out of camera jpeg just for fun.

whats happening here ?

@TimoK

Your eyes are much better than mine. Yes it looks like a bit of clipping so I should have added only 2\3 of a stop since my aperture and shutter speed are set to 1\3 stop increments.

But these histograms are just quick and simple examples to prove the concept behind the benefit of raw histograms.

Two answers:
1) As is, I would believe you are well exposed already, you are not leaving any image quality or noise performance on the table at these camera settings. To my knowledge, A7 IV has 14-bit output files, and so spiky values very near Rawdigger value of 16384 indicate that "that´s it".

2) If circumstances allowed (not that it mattered for the topic), shooting at ISO100 uncompressed RAW, you might be very close to 1,5 stops below optimal exposure. But as you mentioned before, your lighting conditions might not allow, therefore the evaluation of what you could or could not do is subjective. If you could shoot at ISO100, then you didn´t expose optimally.

As far as I understand, even this response deviates from other usesr opinions. That would be nice to clarify. Hopefully it is because they believe the saturation value is 65536, while it is not? Somehow I also hope that last histograms are about different image.

In that particular case, you would not gain anything much at all. You are well exposed. Any blowouts are due to the latter processing.
But it might be coincidence. Maybe in some circumstances, it wouldn´t be so, more scenarios might need to be tested to be sure.

If you want to be taken seriously you should answer other people's questions first. You can't have it both ways.

You have been asked multiple times in other threads to define in your own words exposure and underexposure as you use them in sentences and you have run away on each occasion.

In your own words what is the definition of exposure and underexposure you use in your senrence?

If you are not prepared to do that I cannot take you seriously as a photographer, especially as a professional.

thanks for the answer, its a hard call as you can only set the camera and my lighting to 1/3 stops increments so im pretty darn close. just for the record i do shoot in compressed raw not uncompressed but dont know if that makes any difference. i have tested both and i cant see much of a difference between the two.

all good ,the other guy has answered my original question without fuss based on a raw file provided which has been my set up for the last 10,000 portraits.

I´m not sure about ins and outs of that compression process, but it is very likely that in standard scenarios, you will not find any difference. If I was to search for any, it would be grades after pushing the file, black levels and such.

This is where the thin line is reached. In a way, this is too deep offtopic, and the topic is not whether someone is about to be taken seriously or not for fulfilling your demands. You of course can chose to not take anyone seriously, but unless there is broad consensus, it is not a topic for here.
There are cases where I exactly DO NOT WANT someone to reach his goal or acquire knowledge or whatever, often for objective reasons. But it is overreach for such things to bring into the forums. You keep that for yourself, as it goes against basic human decency, forum policies and such.

cheers, thank you very much for your time and effort. Its nice to get a straight answer for a change.

Don

About the ISO setting I think that ISO400 was better than 320. Or do I misunderstand this?

www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Sony%20ILCE-7M4 ( I can't insert it as a link here, but it's a valid address if you copy/paste it to browser)

Edit. The link is looks like working.

Yes. In a way yes. I am guilty of not knowing everything - so theoretically, using higher ISO speed would lead to need for less exposure, giving you worse SNR, therefore more noise, and so the advantage of 0.4 stops would be offset a little lower, maybe to a point one would not care. But good catch!

It really depends on what is clipped in the photograph it could be just spectral highlight that would not worry me about the clipping.
This could be metal or even reflections in a leaf

@CrashpcCZ

DonaldB has a long history of ignoring other people's requests to him which is fine as it is his choice.

The point I was making is that it would be unreasonable for me to waste time providing his requests to me when he is not prepared to reciprocate.

I was being honest in my reply to him. Nothing more, nothing less than that.