plugging in a field monitor into a camera like mine is like plugging in an oscilloscope into the output stage of a radio transmitter and tuning up the finals for maximum power output and balancing up the audio signal modulation to 100% if you dont want to clip the modulation you tune it back a little. the best part of a field monitor is it doesnt clip at the ends it keeps reading the signal. also where do you think the ends of the histogram are in the camera in comparison to the raw file or a field monitor ? the best thing about a field monitor is you can actually balance the image brightness very accurately because it reads beyond clipping both ends and its live, computer software is not live . do yours self a favor and go buy a field monitor and find out yourself IN THE FIELD.
-
-
I wish you two guys could learn to explore the subject co-operatively rather than going at it hammer and tongs. There is some interesting stuff being revealed in your debate, but the animosity and partial trolling makes for painful reading for the uninvolved. Do you have to keep winding one another up? It's like you need an independent marriage counsellor 🙂
You can see why that internet joke originated "yes dear, I'll be down for dinner soon, but there's someone wrong on internet I got to fix first"
At some point one or other of you is going to have to recognise you are not going to fix the other by continuing to try. It's futile....
Now if one of you could summarise the findings of the debate in one wrap-up post, that would be really useful.
-
Yep, as I said earlier, you're going round in circles now trolling so my reply is the same
-
Luckily I have already had my dinner tonight.
-
wish i knew how to delete his clip board 😂🤣
-
hi Mate go to Jims thread for better information without the soap opera replies dprevived.com/t/raw-ettr-example-case/2192/
he is putting up images making his findings clearer to understand.
-
I have my own view about which of your is right (which I'm keeping to myself 🙂) but you two could keep this up for another 1000 posts and neither of you will budge an inch. You have passed the point where anything new is being added, it's become personal and nothing more than a silly arm wrestle. Perhaps it's time for you both acknowledge this and give up trying to convert one another? It's not going to happen.
-
DonaldB already has summed it from his point of view.
Whether anyone accepts it or not is their choice to make.
However it's been proven in many posts that it does matter to some people.
-
You could agree between you to a final post: Argument A vs Argument B clearly set out with the emotional stuff stripped out and leave it at that. People can then make their minds up without having to decide who they like most! It's a bit too Newton vs Leibniz at the moment.
-
I haven't been trying to convert him at all. I and others have posted the potential benefits of using raw histograms and DonaldB has posted his conclusion as is his choice to make but he is struggling to cope with people shooting raw being able to output higher quality images than sooc jpegs which is what he prefers to shoot.
I have acknowledged his choice that it doesn't matter to him -
-
what's so silly about this thread and everyone judging the in-camera histogram accuracy. mine is great.
-
Maybe, but everlasting threads (and disputes over multiple threads over multiple days) implies this has gone beyond reason and is now a personal fight. I know how difficult it is to tear yourself away once you get emotionally entangled, been there myself lots of time. But it's a new dawn here. Human nature being what it is, you'll never get the other guy to concede once embroiled in a battle like this, even if you post 10,000 more times. You are wasting your own energy. By all means carry on, but my advice comes from personal experience. It isn't worth it.
-
There is nothing wrong or silly with judging the in-camera histogram accuracy compared to raw histograms.
In my experience the camera's histogram is a close approximation of the raw histogram but undeniably it is not the same as a raw histogram.
The dataset for the camera's histogram is demosaiced raw data, has had white balance applied to it and has been mapped to the colour profile you have set in the camera.
-
Not from my point of view. I had the 500th post in this thread and I aiming to get the 600th post as well now 😊
The intended query in the op has well and truly been answered multiple times in this thread so this is just a bit of fun now.
-
that's even better because i set up camera profiles that i prefer for my jpeg output. and then apply them to my raw files if i decide to process them (not for events). if your canon isnt accurate buy a sony .😁
-
My camera is accurate. The colour space assigned in my camera by default is irrelevant because raw data is mapped to a colour space during the raw conversion, either in camera for sooc jpegs or in the raw converter in post. The Adobe RGB colour space that I have set in ACR suits the type of photos and prints I make very well.
Just use whatever colour profiles work best for you.
The colour profile you choose has nothing to do with maximising the quality of the raw data.
-
whats the best photo editing software to maximise the raw data ? There are ive given you a good thread title to knock yourself out on.
-
Request to lock this thread.