you are on the new server domainname will switch later
If you can not login please clear cookies
chevron_left
chevron_right
The-Photo forum
  • Home
  • Forums
    • theatersImage Discussions arrow_forward
      • chat_bubbleChallenges arrow_forward
        • camera Edit me an Image
        • camera Photo of the Week
      • chat_bubbleHave your photos Critiqued arrow_forward
        • camera Wednesday C&C
      • Showcase your Photos
      • chat_bubbleWeekly & Topic Image Threads arrow_forward
        • camera Abstract/Experimental
        • camera B&W Threads
        • camera Sunday Cats!
        • camera Weekly Collegial forum
        • camera Daily Outing
        • camera This week through your eyes
        • camera Landscape
        • camera Street Photography
    • theatersMiscellaneous forums arrow_forward
      • Photo Hardware Discussions
      • Industry News
    • theatersOther Photography Talk arrow_forward
      • Photo History Trivia
      • Open discussions
      • Technical Discussions
    • Site Discussions
    • theatersWelcome arrow_forward
      • chat_bubbleForum Guidelines arrow_forward
        • camera Misplaced Posts
  • Threads
  • Users
  • Web Site
  • message
  • group
  • chevron_right Threads
  • label Other Other Photography Talk
  • label Open Open discussions

Why Don't Camera's Have Raw Histograms?

DanHasLeftForum
May 18, 2023
chat_bubble_outline 439
arrow_downward first_page chevron_left chevron_right last_page
  • link
    DonaldB
    Members 2435 posts
    May 28, 2023, 10:44 a.m. May 28, 2023, 10:44 a.m.
    link
    @DannoLeftForums has written:

    I'm using ACR with Photoshop Elements and the Elements XXL plugin

    On my screen the colours look pretty much what I would expect but obviously I wasn't there at the time of the shot.

    The colours can be easily adjusted to whatever you would like them to be.

    As I said, on my screen the version I posted looks very much better than the original you posted and obviously since your screen is not profiled and calibrated only by eye I would be very surprised if the colours look exactly the same on your screen as they do on mine.

    dog_edited_histogram.jpg

    but you can sample the white on the dog in acr from the raw image and 4800 is near perfect from the day light i had shot the image. your image on all my screens even my new tablet which has beautiful colour , your image has a yellow cast and the histogram shows this on your image. i use grey patches to calibrate my monitor's.

  • link
    DonaldB
    Members 2435 posts
    May 28, 2023, 10:47 a.m. May 28, 2023, 10:47 a.m.
    link

    this is your whites

    Capture yellow.JPG

    Capture yellow.JPG

    JPG, 150.3 KB, uploaded by DonaldB on May 28, 2023.

  • link
    DanHasLeftForum
    Members 4254 posts
    May 28, 2023, 10:52 a.m. May 28, 2023, 10:52 a.m.
    link
    @DonaldB has written:
    @DannoLeftForums has written:

    I'm using ACR with Photoshop Elements and the Elements XXL plugin

    On my screen the colours look pretty much what I would expect but obviously I wasn't there at the time of the shot.

    The colours can be easily adjusted to whatever you would like them to be.

    As I said, on my screen the version I posted looks very much better than the original you posted and obviously since your screen is not profiled and calibrated only by eye I would be very surprised if the colours look exactly the same on your screen as they do on mine.

    dog_edited_histogram.jpg

    but you can sample the white on the dog in acr from the raw image and 4800 is near perfect from the day light i had shot the image. your image on all my screens even my new tablet which has beautiful colour , your image has a yellow cast and the histogram shows this on your image. i use grey patches to calibrate my monitor's.

    Your histogram and my histogram are pretty much the same.

    The "sooc" jpeg you posted has a slight blue cast on my screen.

    The most likely reason for the different colours we are each seeing is because our monitors are setup differently. That is an issue with displaying images online. The image can look great on the creator's screen but the creator has no control whatsoever how that image will render and look on the screen of anyone viewing the image online.

    This little exercise we have just gone through is clear evidence of that.

    If I was standing next to you when you opened my version it is very possible I could agree with you about the colours not being right even though they look correct on my screen. That would be due to the different calibration/profiling/setups of our monitors.

    CrashpcCZ likes this.

    favorite 1

  • link
    DonaldB
    Members 2435 posts
    May 28, 2023, 10:53 a.m. May 28, 2023, 10:53 a.m.
    link

    this is what grey looks like this sample is from the forum boarder.
    forum grey.JPG

    forum grey.JPG

    JPG, 56.7 KB, uploaded by DonaldB on May 28, 2023.

  • link
    DanHasLeftForum
    Members 4254 posts
    May 28, 2023, 10:54 a.m. May 28, 2023, 10:54 a.m.
    link
    @DonaldB has written:

    this is your whites

    I can make the whites whatever colour you like so I don't see your point. I don't know how close to pure white the dog's fur was.

  • link
    DanHasLeftForum
    Members 4254 posts
    May 28, 2023, 11:03 a.m. May 28, 2023, 11:03 a.m.
    link
    @DonaldB has written:

    this is what grey looks like this sample is from the forum boarder.
    forum grey.JPG

    The same on my screen. Border colour comes up as 211,211,211 using PSE's Color Picker Tool but that is just what is set in the web page's CSS for the border colour.

    211,211,211 can look different on different monitors depending on how/if they are calibrated and profiled.

    .borderColor.jpg

    .borderColor.jpg

    JPG, 150.5 KB, uploaded by DannoLeftForums on May 28, 2023.

    CrashpcCZ likes this.

    favorite 1

  • link
    IliahBorg
    Members 976 posts
    May 28, 2023, 3:13 p.m. May 28, 2023, 3:13 p.m.
    link
    @DonaldB has written:

    1drv.ms/i/s!ArStsPjQ301PmVRlBdd9pUNK8lCg?e=UTDps5

    This shot is taken in lossy mode, making a good conversion more difficult (less bits, and sharpening acts over compression artifacts, leading to halos).
    The shot can use +1 EV, and probably a different focusing.
    For the reference, here is the default Sony conversion, 8-bit TIFF, sRGB:
    s3.amazonaws.com/IliahBorg/A7M01564.TIF

    JohnVickers and JimKasson like this.

    favorite 2

  • link
    CAcreeks
    Members 123 posts
    May 28, 2023, 3:30 p.m. May 28, 2023, 3:30 p.m.
    link
    @IliahBorg has written:
    @DonaldB has written:

    1drv.ms/i/s!ArStsPjQ301PmVRlBdd9pUNK8lCg?e=UTDps5

    This shot is taken in lossy mode, making a good conversion more difficult (less bits, and sharpening acts over compression artifacts, leading to halos).
    The shot can use +1 EV, and probably a different focusing.
    For the reference, here is the default Sony conversion, 8-bit TIFF, sRGB:
    s3.amazonaws.com/IliahBorg/A7M01564.TIF

    Yes, a little warmer than DonaldB's "out of camera" JPEG. By default Sony conversion do you mean using Sony Raw converter? Odd that it has a different color balance than A7m4. I like Danno's warmer colors though perhaps they are not accurate.

    Also why does Firefox think TIFF is a security risk?
    www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/answer/Attack-by-TIFF-images-What-are-the-vulnerabilities-in-LibTIFF

    I really don't like the out-of-focus rendition of that lens. The foreground seems to have multiple layers with sudden transitions. The background items look shaky or something. This is the problem with full-frame. Give me an iPhone for this shot, I'd probably like it better.

  • link
    IliahBorg
    Members 976 posts
    May 28, 2023, 3:45 p.m. May 28, 2023, 3:45 p.m.
    link
    @CAcreeks has written:

    "out of camera" JPEG

    Embedded JPEG:
    A7M01564.jpg

    @CAcreeks has written:

    By default Sony conversion do you mean using Sony Raw converter?

    Yes.

    A7M01564.jpg

    JPG, 2.8 MB, uploaded by IliahBorg on May 28, 2023.

  • link
    TonyBeach
    Members 209 posts
    May 28, 2023, 4:02 p.m. May 28, 2023, 4:02 p.m.
    link
    @CAcreeks has written:

    I really don't like the out-of-focus rendition of that lens. The foreground seems to have multiple layers with sudden transitions. The background items look shaky or something. This is the problem with full-frame. Give me an iPhone for this shot, I'd probably like it better.

    Shaky background is something I occasionally see when using image stabilization, which was used here.

    IliahBorg likes this.

    favorite 1

  • link
    bobn2
    Team 2240 posts
    May 28, 2023, 5:06 p.m. May 28, 2023, 5:06 p.m.
    link
    @DonaldB has written:
    @bobn2 has written:
    @DonaldB has written:

    not even going to touch this image thats straight from camera.

    I assume you're not asking for C&C.

    Come on Bob process the raw and compare it to the jpeg i posted. post your processed raw.

    I'll take that as a 'no'. It's always hard to choose exactly where to focus in a shot like this, isn't it?

    TonyBeach, SrMi and IliahBorg like this.

    favorite 3

  • link
    CrashpcCZ
    Members 360 posts
    May 28, 2023, 5:58 p.m. May 28, 2023, 5:58 p.m.
    link

    I wonder how exactly is this discussion "on topic". :-)

    In the meantime, with not much effort given, I am delighted to see what current cameras and processing can do. There were times where ISO800/1600 was where it got very ugly. Not anymore.
    I wonder why camera reviewers are saying that high ISO settings are completely garbage, and not usable for anything than marketing purposes.
    Welp, for basic documentation and mobile/FB content viewing, there is not much wrong about it.
    The old 24Mpx sensor of Z5 (D600 with some tweaks) "still got it".
    All nonsense photos just for testing purposes, but ISO 51200 nonetheless:

    51200_2.jpg

    51200_3.jpg

    51200_4.jpg

    51200_01.jpg

    Fine by me.

    51200_01.jpg

    JPG, 966.4 KB, uploaded by CrashpcCZ on May 28, 2023.

    51200_4.jpg

    JPG, 6.5 MB, uploaded by CrashpcCZ on May 28, 2023.

    51200_3.jpg

    JPG, 1.2 MB, uploaded by CrashpcCZ on May 28, 2023.

    51200_2.jpg

    JPG, 1013.9 KB, uploaded by CrashpcCZ on May 28, 2023.

  • link
    JimKasson
    Members 1738 posts
    May 28, 2023, 6:03 p.m. May 28, 2023, 6:03 p.m.
    link
    @DonaldB has written:

    A7M01564.JPG

    not even going to touch this image thats straight from camera.

    Raw link. have fun processing.

    1drv.ms/i/s!ArStsPjQ301PmVRlBdd9pUNK8lCg?e=UTDps5

    A7M01564.jpg

    A7M01564.jpg

    JPG, 1.5 MB, uploaded by JimKasson on May 28, 2023.

    IanSForsyth, CAcreeks, SrMi and 1 other user like this.

    favorite 4

  • link
    CrashpcCZ
    Members 360 posts
    May 28, 2023, 6:08 p.m. May 28, 2023, 6:08 p.m.
    link

    Bhaha, the left rear leg made my day. :-) Great skills, Jim! But the parrot was way too funny iteration.

  • link
    JohnMoyer
    Members 83 posts
    May 28, 2023, 7:11 p.m. May 28, 2023, 7:11 p.m.
    link
    @CAcreeks has written:

    Also why does Firefox think TIFF is a security risk?

    www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-2224/product_id-3881/Libtiff-Libtiff.html

  • link
    TonyBeach
    Members 209 posts
    May 28, 2023, 8:55 p.m. May 28, 2023, 8:55 p.m.
    link
    @DonaldB has written:
    Quoted message:

    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.

    "...when i have to compare the images at 300% than thats a draw. I took my jpeg into ACR, applied a little texture and clarity. then PS tiny bit of sharpening. 1 min max working the jpeg. but your image kept a bit more texture in some feathers but you then lost some texture in other parts."

    It appears to me you have done some backpedaling here from your original assertion that those that don't settle for OOC JPEGs do so because "they lack confidence knowing they make mistakes." You have also qualified "exceptional." To bring this back to the topic of the thread, some of us try to make photographs of high DR scenes, and even with the rather low DR scenes like the ones you are presenting we want to get the most we can from our cameras which in turn will give us the most we can from the resulting files to work with in the processing of the shot into a photograph. Some of us choose to get around the limitations our camera's OOC JPEGs have with the challenge of high DR scenes in particular by using ETTR, that requires a very different approach to exposure than what you use, and it renders the OOC JPEG useless. That is why it is not fear of making a mistake due to a lack of skill that leads us to shooting Raw rather than OOC JPEGs.

    CrashpcCZ and JimKasson like this.

    favorite 2

  • link
    DonaldB
    Members 2435 posts
    May 28, 2023, 9:39 p.m. May 28, 2023, 9:39 p.m.
    link
    @bobn2 has written:
    @DonaldB has written:
    @bobn2 has written:
    @DonaldB has written:

    not even going to touch this image thats straight from camera.

    I assume you're not asking for C&C.

    Come on Bob process the raw and compare it to the jpeg i posted. post your processed raw.

    I'll take that as a 'no'. It's always hard to choose exactly where to focus in a shot like this, isn't it?

    you guys crack me up. when placed to show your processing skills back down.

  • link
    DonaldB
    Members 2435 posts
    May 28, 2023, 9:46 p.m. May 28, 2023, 9:46 p.m.
    link
    @JimKasson has written:
    @DonaldB has written:

    A7M01564.JPG

    not even going to touch this image thats straight from camera.

    Raw link. have fun processing.

    1drv.ms/i/s!ArStsPjQ301PmVRlBdd9pUNK8lCg?e=UTDps5

    A7M01564.jpg

    the sky is purple.
    nice detail raw really helped. just for others the raw is left
    jim comparrision.JPG

    jim comparrision.JPG

    JPG, 299.4 KB, uploaded by DonaldB on May 28, 2023.

arrow_upward first_page chevron_left chevron_right last_page

There are 188 more posts in this thread.

  • DPRevived.com & the-photo.org are owned and operated by The Photographer's Foundation Limited, registered in England, company number 14795583. Contact us here https://the-photo.org/contact.html
powered by misago