Scene luminance has nothing to do with exposure.

Depends on white balance and dominating colour in the scene, and raw data processing applied before displaying a histogram.

Referring to camera / converter histograms as a proof of something about raw doesn't work without accurate tests and presentation of the results.

As I said, the only way you can prove your method is by presenting a series of shots, raw, sequential, of a variety of scenes, indoors, outdoors, day, evening, including strongly coloured objects, taken in conditions that don't limit exposure (tripod, studio lights, etc. ) that are all exposed to the right. That's testing. What you are doing is not.

Basically, if you don't need/want a raw histogram (or think you don't need it), it's totally up to you. You can continue with the exposure guesswork. Others want/need raw histograms. One of the reasons why is that we want to be 100% sure about our exposure.

One thing that very few people can do is to manipulate a raw from a consumer camera and leave no traces.

Mission Accomplished!! 😊😊😊😎

Now it's back to

You have mis read my post. manipulated raw in camera to produce the data for the histogram.

work tomorrow, but will carry on with the testing tuesday. with other tests as you say its not complete by any tecknical means . its quite funny the hostogram is so small and having to use a jewelers loupe and my 4x microscope objective to even see the the thing 😁

😁🤣😵‍💫😜🤨😎
I was going to post my histogram in the thread "has anyone taken a photo of sometning you cant explain" 😁

Is that really, really the best you can come up with? 🤣🤣🤣

Even Ghundred and Porky made far better attempts at trolling and they are both Troll School dropouts 😄😄

You will have to come up with much better than that lame effort if you need to be taken seriously as a troll.

In any case, attacking the DannoLeftForums account without knowing who is actually sitting at the DannoLeftForums keyboard makes you look weak, impotent and stupid to me because attacking an anonymous account name like you are trying to do here has no effect at all on anybody in real life 😄😃.

Let's see what else ya got in your trolling school bag to try to attack account names 😎😎.

It might make you eligible for Troll School 😉

Give it ya best shot 😂😂😎

Typing on phones and not bothering to check before posting is more common. It makes life more easy for the poster and less easy for the reader.
Don

Your histograms rather fall into a category of something you don't understand. Qualified explanations just don't work on you...

That's calculable by fixing your conversion or picture style parameters and varying only exposure of a fixed scene, but it is going to vary through the histogram with most histograms, which use gamma or logarithms on the right side, and are more linear on the left. You couldn't even have black or zero on the left end if the left side was logarithmic, as there is no such thing as the logarithm of zero; a pure logarithmic histogram would go on forever to the left. I would assume that in cameras, the histogram is almost always directly based on an 8-bit converted image, and the values in that image (or a binning or subsampling of it). With such histograms, the number of histogram pixels per stop should peak in the middle of the range, and always be lower on the left end, and lower on the right end when the converter rolls in and compresses an extended range of highlights.

Here's a crude, quantized guess-timation of how objects exactly in a 1-stop luminance series might render with a highlight-extending picture style; just keep in mind that the very left section would actually be denser with the "|" lines, if you kept halving exposure:

|||| |  |  |    |      |       |       |      |  ||

It's very difficult to calculate this for an arbitrary white balance, especially when the histogram is of luminosity. But works for the green channel most of the time.

In the MILC cameras that I've used, the EVF histogram horizontal axis appears to be the tone curve of the JPEG color space selected.

Yes.

Yes, that what I assume is the norm. They already have that data to make the EVF image, so why generate a second set, when the existing one is already applicable for intended purpose?

I think camera manufacturers are going to be reluctant to consider making a EVF histogram that doesn't correspond to what folk are looking at in the viewfinder. Raises too many questions, from folk who won't get the difference between scene-referred and display-referred...

Perhaps it could be a raw histogram if the camera is writing raw files, and a JPEG histogram if it is writing JPEGs. I don't know what it should be if the camera producing both.

If you're not giving a raw histogram, then it makes sense that the RGB histogram is based on what the OOC JPEG would be expected to have (in "live view") or already has (if it is a review histogram).