Raw Histogram??

Sure. If we're not talking about matrix metering and such.

just did the test and the A74 and XZ1 histograms maxed out showed the identical exposure. thats awesome. the olympus playback RGB histogram is unbelevabley detailed.

Yes, Yes, Yes 🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗😎

That is exactly what I advise people to do and what I actually do in my posts. I say an image is too dark or too light or it needs to be darkened or lightened etc etc.

If I ever use "under exposed" in any of my posts it is as per the definition in my signature and is why I include the signature for the sake of clarity in my posts.

* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
** optimal exposure - the maximum exposure* within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.
*** under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlights.

not unless i see images of the rear LCD screens and raw histogram im not convinced.

Ok, thank you for that 🙂 but in the overwhelming majority of the photos I take I use matrix/evaluative metering and it works well for me. Why doesn't it apply to matrix/evaluative metering?

blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/histogram-example-normal-contrast-scene/

blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/histograms-low-contrast-scene-with-specular-highlight/

blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/histograms-high-contrast-scene/

not a sony camera, as you quoted.

OM-1 is calibrated to less than 7%, that's slightly less than 4 stops down from clipping.

I have proposed that over and underexposure be qualified. For example, underexposed one stop from the exposure that results from metering a gray card.

I've sold all my Sony cameras.

You've seen that Adobe are adding 0.35 EV lightness to raw files from your camera to compensate. You've seen that if a scene contains a significant patch of saturated colour (red, for example) the histogram shows clipping where there is none.

That you can do, see those screens and raw histograms. Actually, you did, but you are not paying attention.

ok, thank you 🙂 I didn't realise there was such a large range in the calibration of camera meters.

At this stage I think I'll go with:

"....contemporary camera meters are calibrated to output a firmware set image lightness...."

Would you be comfortable with that if you saw it in my posts?

1/15 f/3.2 vs. 1/15 f/3.2+1. What's that +1?

1/20 on FastRawViewer screenshot, 1/25 on the LCD. Interesting.

I think the notion that the calibration of the meters is guided by what the manufacturer wants it to be (and depends on what results in what they think is acceptable image quality) can be made more clear. Same camera may have different calibration for different ISO settings. It's all about what the manufacturer thinks is good enough output.

good catch. have no idea will have to look into that.

will check it out.
checked it out thats just the over exposure amount form the cameras normal exposure, its not a correction.