Why Don't Camera's Have Raw Histograms?

Well said!!

I absolutely believe numbers versus how something looks on anybody's screen, calibrated or not.

Numbers alone tell me that the dog shot was under-exposed at the sensor.

May I suggest studying Dan Margulis books?

The point I am making is that my final images from raw processing are not all about the numbers as DonaldB suggests. Yes of course the numbers play a big part but they are not the only part in my processing to a final image.

Whose dog shot is it? Detail by-the-numbers is quite good!

I'm referring to hues and tints you were discussing. Numbers are evidence.

I have posted numerous images in both the Samples and Galleries and Photography Critiques forums. Feel free to have a look over there and post any comments or feedback.

The shot's detail analysis by-the-numbers (Laplace edge detection, black-and-white threshold) seems to have conveniently disappeared from the quote.

I will not be going through [two] fora looking for your images to see if it's your dog shot ... I'm not that stupid ...

Earlier this thread in a reply to DonaldB I posted:

"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."

What part would you say is not true or not valid?

What on earth are you waffling on about?

The original dog photo and raw file was posted by DonaldB. No-one is disputing that.

And it's only 2 forums, not 3 I mentioned.

I don't know...maybe you are? 😃

Finally a simple answer to a simple question ... didn't know you could do it!

Jerk ...

There....fixed your post for you 🙂

Who posted the original photo was never disputed or in doubt except for you 😄

Exactly! That makes two of us.
The topic is why don't cameras have raw histogram. You can read it in the heading. Just like you, I have fun. How dare me to have a fun.

Where would we be without you?

You are providing further proof supporting my point at:

dprevived.com/t/why-is-so-much-nonsense-talked-about-telephoto-compression/3111/7/#post-42930

Please improve your English grammar; it should have said:

"I have posted numerous images in both the Samples and Galleries and [the] Photography Critiques forums."

While you're at it, might as well take the apostrophy out of "Camera's" in the thread title ...

You are providing further proof supporting my point at:

dprevived.com/t/why-is-so-much-nonsense-talked-about-telephoto-compression/3111/7/#post-42930 🤣🤣

I'll think about taking you seriously when I see you offer the same advice to DonaldB 😎

and when you practise what you preach at:

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

Not only that. Prove that without calibration that what you are seeing on your monitor is a neutral color and not just close to being one.