Why Don't Camera's Have Raw Histograms?

Substitute "results they are happy with" instead of exposure. Not everybody enjoys this game you insist on playing.

That is up to them.

I make no apology for making it clear what exposure means to me when I use it in sentences. That way there is no misunderstanding, especially if discussing exposure* related matters in a "beginners" environment.

Whether anyone then agrees with me or not is another matter.

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

That's the question.

And I answered it, so not sure what you mean.

It's not a particularly satisfying answer since it has a plug number that the user can define.

In the real world, optimal exposure is often tricky because of specularity.

And, to some extent, IMHO because of photon shot noise.

But now you are referring to achieving optimal exposure which was discussed recently.

I was simply defining exposure and optimal exposure as I use it in sentences in my posts.

This oft-repeated and all-encompassing statement is incorrect because it does not apply to many modern cameras.

Now you are just being stupid again because you are not practising what you preach :-D

In any case that is just an opinion which is your choice to have. The same issue was raised in another thread and it was explained by others why it is still acceptable.

It certainly is totally true for my cameras and so it is totally valid to include it in my posts to make it clear what I mean by exposure* when I use it in sentences.

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

It appears not to have sunk into your stupid head that I have ceased practicing what I preached long ago, but that is OK because the longer you spend typing your broken-record crap the less time we spend reading your endless drivel and the more time I can spend looking for something else to hit you with next. 😎

Looks to me like you're the only person left on the planet that doesn't know what exposure is.

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 🤣🤣

Nope 😊 Exposure is the amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.

But there are many people who still have the misconception that exposure is how light or dark an image looks on the medium the image is being viewed on.

It's like Lord of the Flies in here. The sad part is that without you quoting anyone, I can't tell to which user(s) you have addressed your remark.

Aaron

Ok, thank you for clarifying because I can get results I am happy with without necessarily having "proper exposures" (using your words).

The "proper exposure" for me is the maximum exposure* within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.

Setting ISO higher than necessary was the most common way I got exposure* wrong when I first started out even though the image lightness was what I wanted.

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

Can you just put this thread out of it's misery?
And maybe ban a couple of people?

My query in my op was answered in the first 10 posts of this thread :-D 13 days ago!!

From my point of view this thread can now be locked:-)

I'm out.

Okay, that is for you, and I think that's fine. However, I would say that for me attaining a maximum exposure is ideal but not necessarily what I would call "proper." Iliah mentioned latitude, and I would say a "proper" exposure is within the sensor's latitude, and that latitude depends on the intended output (1000 pixels has a lot of latitude while filling up my 4K monitor has quite a bit less).