Scene luminance has nothing to do with exposure.

I think you need to read up on instument / measurement resolution. surely you understand that ? 🤨 maybe not.

your stuttering again.

Nope, you keep repeating the same comments so I repeat the same replies 🤣🤣😎

It's a simple fact - the histogram shows clipping when there is none. You can blame it on whatever you want, the fact remains.

its not even up against the side its a white patch 😁😁😜no fall off

perfectly good raw exposure and camera histogram but here is the jpeg from camera.

Nope, there is a bit of data going up the right side of the histogram.

idiot

its got a dark pixel before the white pixel boarder. 😵‍💫😵‍💫

you must shoot with a handy man camera as well. not my problem

A histogram is a frequency count of either the individual rgb values (RGB histogram) or a frequency count of the luminosity of each pixel. Either way, the histogram data for "dark" pixels will be towards the left of the histogram.

On a histogram there is no way to tell where in the image any data point came from as shown in

What Is Happening Under The Histogram Hood

Or perhaps your image is just another example of your proven history of fudging images to suit the agenda you are pushing at the time 😁😁😎

Either way it doesn't matter because:

Your false logic, findings and blatant lies have already been proven in multiple threads by multiple people so I have no need to provide further proof to what has already been posted.

I can guarantee you 100% that Sony engineers will also tell you your camera's histogram is not a raw histogram.

For a given scene your camera's histogram will vary according to the WB and colour space settings you set which proves your camera's histogram cannot possibly be a raw histogram.

show me where i said its a raw histogram

Its pixel dust 🤣

Raw histogram and why does it matter

Or are you now agreeing that your camera's histogram is not a raw histogram?

a question for you how many stops is equal to 1 horizontal pixel ?

Or perhaps your image is just another example of your proven history of fudging images to suit the agenda you are pushing at the time 😁😁😎

Either way it doesn't matter because:

Your false logic, findings and blatant lies have already been proven in multiple threads by multiple people so I have no need to provide further proof to what has already been posted.

I can guarantee you 100% that Sony engineers will also tell you your camera's histogram is not a raw histogram.

For a given scene your camera's histogram will vary according to the WB and colour space settings you set which proves your camera's histogram cannot possibly be a raw histogram.

Or are you now agreeing that your camera's histogram is not a raw histogram?

no one knows what the histogram is, as i said to Ian on a private measage. you woudnt now if it was a manipulated raw or a manipulated jpeg.
but the fact remains its not a straightout of camera jpeg. and the answer to my ohter question to you is there is 9 pixels 27 colours per 1/3 stop
so its to hard to get a precise pixel per pixel match. but its close enough for the purpose.

I heard that Samsung has a new monitor that is infused with uranium for the HDR viewing anything above 255 and it starts to kick in.
But it is recommended that you limit your exposure to only REL of 50 to 100 mSv

this is 1/3 stop exposure comp difference

](/a/EAGgDuC3sDulfXfnBXdv7EyfIa4726miZIwewE4dE2e5JtpVAIzmoaYzfYtwEi6c/12370/?shva=1)