Why Don't Camera's Have Raw Histograms?

Ian, some time back I posted

dprevived.com/t/lets-save-this-site/3506/#post-38309

If we keep responding, they'll keep coming back and never go away ...

i dont have to review past images, I own the camera and see it every day. you dont and neither does anyone else by the looks, your gear has a histogram that might be 10 stops out but i dont, seems simple to me.

I have a Sony a6600 nearby, and its live histogram changes when changing WB. Since the live histogram is tiny and luminance only, the changes are not as obvious as in the RGB histogram in the image review.

checked it out and it only happens using auto iso, with fixed iso its instant, no delay. Just as Jim was experiencing.

its very small and really only a guide . try the one in the display menu its quite big but you cant see the image.

The largest live histogram is in the display mode "For viewfinder." In that display mode, it is even easier to see the change caused by changing WB.

Because there are enough 'serious' photographers and pros to make a business case.

As long as we are on a why kick, why the qwerty keyboard when dvorak is superior and allows for much faster error free typing?

Maybe a majority of people are using raw now. As I wrote: "If I had to guess..."

So...in other words, your Sony camera's live histogram/blinkies is pretty useless for JPEG shooters. Interesting design decision by Sony to piss off all those JPEG shooters and not even mention the different behavior in any of the user documentation.

Around 7%. My point is different. If the number of raw shooters is enough to keep raw as an option, why it isn't enough to show the histogram of the actual data written or to be written?

Check that you have the current firmware installed. Go outside. Cover the lens, wait 5 secs, open the lens, check the delay. Try both ISO auto and fixed ISO in LV effects on, then in LV effects off.

For me the "mistake" is shooting JPEG. If the OOC JPEG is sufficient for your purposes, good for you, but that doesn't mean it is for everyone.

have the latest firmware. tested the camera its only the exposure compensation dial that has the delay. its not a delay as such but a gradual shift to the required brightness. not an instant "bang" its there. its no big deal just an observation.

most latest camera have exceptional jpegs. a few months ago i posted a raw file to see what everyone's skill level was at processing a raw . the image was a fine feathered bird. no one could process the raw better than the jpeg. they all got very frustrated and called it quits. never say never.

Exposure for raw and JPEG differs. You exposed for JPEG.
It's your opinion that no one could process raw better than your JPEG. Don' try to force your opinion. Also, your "everyone", it's hilarious.
Finally, I can imagine that communicating with you can easily get a regular person very frustrated, and quite a few will call it quits after a couple of your insulting remarks.

What were the tests? In a form of a table, please.

Like I said, if it works for you then good for you. I will often make different choices about tonal curves and WB for photos taken mere seconds apart, and I may later change my mind about those things and many other adjustments (sometimes, even years later). Thus, for me (and obviously not for you), the "mistake" is baking my preconceptions about what are the "best" adjustments into the shot I want to make into a photograph.

That is one of the dumbest posts on several fronts you have made here :-)

1. I and many other people have posted numerous times that exposing for jpeg can be different to exposing for raw output.

2. I have also posted on numerous occasions that with today's modern cameras and with a large enough supply of bananas you can train a monkey to take a nice looking sooc jpeg in good light. The raw file you posted was of a scene in good light.

3. You haven't posted how many people played with your raw file or how you determined their raw processing skills level before they even attempted to play with it.

4. Basing any conclusions about people's processing skills just on one raw file is just plain laughable.

5. A better test would have been to pick a low light scene and take the best photo of it you can as a sooc jpeg. Then set exposure* for optimal raw output. Post the sooc jpeg and raw file and I am sure most people familiar with raw processing will output a better final image than the sooc jpeg.

6. You are extrapolating your clearly proven lack of knowledge in optimising exposure* for raw output and raw processing to mean everyone else must be in the same situation as you. This is ludicrous.

7. Like on many other occasions in this and other threads you are showing that you cannot cope with and are frustrated with people who can output better quality images on many occasions than your sooc jpegs. If you are happy with your sooc jpegs all well and good. Keep doing what works best for you just as other people do what works best for them.

* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.

I freely admit that more than a few times I have:

1. Gone back to an old photo with a different idea of something I could do with it and been glad to have the processing latitude the raw file gives you to try something quite different, and

2. Gone back to an old photo with a different idea of something I could do with it and thought "dammit, why the hell did I shoot that in jpeg??" after determining that what I wanted to do clipped too much in too many places and just wasn't going to work. (To be fair, in some cases this happens with something from an older camera that didn't support raw, but other times I dumbly shot it in jpeg when I didn't have to.)

Just one data point. But I'll bet money I'm not the only one.