The histogram is based on a jpg. You do have control over how the RAW file is processed to generate that jpg via the Picture Control settings. Do some testing with the various Picture control settings to find the one that gives you the most accurate histogram in terms of highlight clipping and shadow clipping. Vivid and Landscape will be more contrasty than Neutral or Standard, and therefore will show clipping that does not exist in the RAW file. I set my Nikon DSLRs to Neutral in order to achieve a histogram that most closely resembles the data in the RAW file. Note that the Picture Control settings do not affect the RAW file (only the jpg).

@rbid: Although i believe that the embedded JPEG (rather than some other manipulated data) is the source of the histogram displayed on the camera, we are certainly in agreement that it is something other than the true RAW histogram. If you change the camera settings for the JPEG you should wind up with the same histogram for the RAW file and the JPEG (when shooting RAW + JPEG, for example, as well as the embedded JPEG file). Several instructors have recommended setting the camera to "zero" rather than Vivid 2 or whatever when shooting RAW so that you get a more accurate representation in the histogram.

P&S cameras sometimes use one color channel for their histograms (and sometimes even exposure). All things considered, they do amazingly well in bringing useful image capture to people in a compact format at very attractive prices....

@Mike: Agree with you (as always).. It is true also that you still need to Post-Process to get a killer shot ...

Hi rbid,

Don't pass so easily over Ade Barkah's point about the Zone System. The Zone System works with printing technique, not in lieu of printing technique.

And it's an important point.

Pre- visualization put shades of gray on everything, but you still _had to process_ for those grays in the darkroom. That was a _requirement_.

You still had to Photoshop the image. ;-)

The short of this is that you can't "Zone" an image without post processing it in some way - that is the nature of 'zone'. It will require something in exposure and the darkroom to put those zones in place.

Just saying that there's more to Photoshop and Ansel than most might think.

My best,

Mike

@patrickdowns: Agree with you about bracketing, but I disagree with you about the Zone System.

I use bracketing on static subjects when I'm not sure about exposure...

I do use a "pseudo" Zone System with my eyes, that is, try to see where is the point I should use for measuring light, and then I use the camera to do it, and it works most of the time.

Remember that the Zone System is just a way to measure light, and if you know what to do, then you do not need the sophisticated stuff like histograms or highlights the camera can give you...

Film was never "get the exposure right and you're done" -- not anymore than digital, anyway.

Otherwise, Ansel Adams would not have needed that Zone system, which was designed in part to "work around" the limitations of photographic film and paper (or to extract the optimum performance out of them, to look at it from another angle). Today, working the histogram does have a lot of analogies with the basics of the Zone system.

more:

Since Mike brought up Ansel A, I'll say this: it's so rare to find photogs who have the mastery of that arcane, tedious, and time-consuming technique like he did (even inventing it...Zone System!) and can still take great pics. Ansel, Brett Weston, some others were rare specimens.

I have never had the patience or love of the tech side, and so my foray into trying the Zone System was short-lived, thank God! That is my frustration with digital: getting too deep into post-production and all the minutiae feels like the new Zone System, and hours in front of the computer I don't want (were I a rich man, I'd have my own tech). I just want to take pitchers! I love the idea of the Leica M9 with a fraction of the controls and options my D7000 has...less fiddling. I want digital to be like film-- just get the exposure right and you're done. Wishful thinking, but then I suppose one can make it as complicated or as easy as you like. I could just get a G12 instead, and take the images to Costco. :)

@Mike Gunter: Great thoughts.

As a (once and always) photojournalist, the bracketing option has one weakness: If you are like me and trying to "nail" the "decisive moment", those don't lend themselves to bracketing always. Sometimes, but sometimes subtle expressions and gestures are fleeting. I am shooting RAW+Jpeg Fine now mostly (unless just goofing, then it's jpeg), and hope that if I expose on the money or close, RAW will get me what I need if JPEG doesn't. That's my story and I am sticking to it!

Bracketing seems like it would be a great idea for landscapes, interiors, still lifes...static subjects. I have much to learn though, about this darn digital.

In older cameras (like the D7Ts (D70s)), the histogram shown there was only the "green" channel.

@Ronin.1: I'm not sure if the histogram is generated by the embedded JPEG image, I guess it is based on some image processing the camera does on the RAW data taking the camera settings into account. (WB for example).

The experiment I have done long ago with my old D7Ts was to take a photo in RAW, then in my computer using a small tool, I extracted (or copied) the embedded JPEG file from the NEF into a new JPEG file, then using Photoshop I could compare both histograms, one from the RAW file and another from the embedded JPEG file, and you will see that the result is not the same. (Although similar due to the fact that the source was the same)

Just take two quick shots of any scene, changing the white balance in between the two frames.

The histogram will shift with the white balance, proving that it's not a RAW histogram.

TaoTeJared said:
Respectfully I do not believe that the Histogram is based only on the JPEG file. I believe it is based on whichever you shot. If you only shoot Raw, there is no jpeg file.

I read your UniWB (never heard of this before) and it sounds more like a sales pitch than much truth to it. I do not experience what the author claims. Certainly Not something I would ever load on my camera. The only thing about jpeg histograms is that he says "Typically" which just means "maybe depending on your settings".

I am open to information, I just have been unable to find that it is based on just the jpeg.

I don't have a source to quote, but the histogram displays the information from the embedded JPEG of the RAW file. You can conduct an experiment to demonstrate this by cranking in some outrageous adjustments to the camera (for the purpose of having their effect be plainly obvious), taking some shots and then setting everything to "0" and doing the same. You can then compare the histograms as well as the embedded JPEGs used for the thumbnail previews (assuming you have software that reads the RAW files natively).

rbid said:
True, now that I remember, my old D7Ts also does it :)
(My mind was tuned to the dual memory slot some cameras have).

The differences is that with the old models, when shooting RAW+JPEG, you could not configure the quality of the JPEG. On the D7K I can!

You could change the RAW+JPEG settings on the D80, D90, D100, D200, D300, so nothing new with the D7000 in the regard. Older entry level models (D40, D60) could only shoot RAW+Basic JPEG.

Hi Rbib,

I sometimes shoot both RAW and JPEGs, especially if I intend to hand off the images to the client at the end of the shoot.

It's easy to find a mix in the image preparation in the camera's picture controls to suit the output for the JPEGs, and you'll have the RAW files if you need manipulation.

The buffer will suffer from both files, something that doesn't normally bother me, but would if I were shooting a number of different project types that involved action, like sports.

If you weren't concerned about your shutter rate, you could do that, too.

My best,

Mike

PB PM said:
rbid, all current Nikon DSLRs, even the lowly D3100 and D5100 can shoot RAW+JPEG.

True, now that I remember, my old D7Ts also does it :)
(My mind was tuned to the dual memory slot some cameras have).

The differences is that with the old models, when shooting RAW+JPEG, you could not configure the quality of the JPEG. On the D7K I can!

Edit: I name the D70s as D7Ts, just to clarify :)

rbid, all current Nikon DSLRs, even the lowly D3100 and D5100 can shoot RAW+JPEG.

Another neat thing that can be done with the D7K (and maybe other pro-cameras) is that you can shot RAW + JPEG:
- If no time and JPEG is sufficient, use the JPEG file,
- Otherwise you still have the choice to use the RAW image.

@DaveyJ: I agree with you about a well informed photographer can accomplish a lot with a fairly modest gear!. Few month ago I saw an exposition in Tel Aviv from a photographer that used a mobile phone camera for taking the exposed photos.. and some of them, you could say: Wow..

With the D7K I feel less limited than with my old D7Ts (D70s), the LCD is bigger and it is easy to do some zooming on it, and even show the histogram of part of the photo!.. This can also help when you are not sure.. Although to be honest, I did not use this feature that may be useful sometimes :)

Another thought, bracketing seems appropriate when you realize it is a tough situation. Especially as it can be programmed quickly with most of this Nikon DSLRs.

Good forum thread here. I especially agree with Mike Gunter's advice. I do mostly shoot in JPEG fine large as I know which kinds of scene are problems and which ones warrant extra time and fooling around. Today I was in the field, it was heavy rain and otherwise quite challenging. I was using my trusty field rig, D90 with the 18-200VR. The results considering were pretty impressive. I always rely on JPEG fine and add RAW if needed. I also wonder if taking along a 13" computer for examining shots might be the way to go rather than examining histograms. As to the display the histogram represents the discussion on this forum seems accurate and insightful. And for sure Ansel Adams pushed ALL his photos (in a number of formats) to the extreme and he had a team of helpers to achieve that. Personally I think we are in an era where one well informed photographer can accomplish a lot with fairly modest gear.

Absolutely, that is how I have been approaching my shooting. You are correct (in my mind) suggesting that with the histogram you start to get a feel for how far you can push in either direction. That's what I find a challenge and fun at the same time.

>> I have to say at this time I am not sure the Uni-WB it the road I want to travel.

Reading the rest of your post I'd have to agree. It sounds like you are happy shooting RAW in order to harvest more data than you'd get in a jpg, but it also sounds like you would prefer a simpler workflow... so I don't see any reason to further complicate it with UniWB. Especially since most people who have shot RAW for a while sort of develop an instinct for it... you can look at a jpg image and histogram on the back of the camera and pretty much predict how much further you can take things and still have a good RAW file. In other words, I suspect that 90% of what UniWB can give you, you'll get on your own if you just keep shooting and pushing the envelope a bit each time to see where that demon lives.

Wow, I never thought that my question would have solicited so much response. I am thankful to everyone especially Mike, and bhoveyga, for your input. I have to say at this time I am not sure the Uni-WB it the road I want to travel.
I shoot in Raw, 14bit, uncompressed, as it is my belief that if I have all the data possible then I can make the changes, I might need once I sit down at the computer. I am all for trying to get it right in the camera (or as close as possible) but not at the cost of missing the shot, or feeling pressured to make those corrections. All I really want to do is enjoy the journey of photography, doing the best I can at that time, learn from the process, both in camera and when I sit down at the computer. This is my hobby, and that's something that I want to be fun, and full of learning, which so far it is. In the process I hope to improve my technical understanding and my creative ability, if that happens, then really for me how I arrive there isn't as important as making that journey.

>> I hold no truck with those that say, 'I spent forever there to get it right in the camera, therefore _I'm better_ for it.'

>> To them I say, 'Jack, you spent a long time there.'

>> The pudding tastes the same.

>> Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with nailing what you 'see'. It's all good.

>> I just prefer to nail what I want my viewer to see.

Excellent comments, Mike!

I enjoy both parts of the process... I love shooting, but I also love working in Photoshop as much or more than I ever loved darkroom work. To me, photography is a delicate balance of skills ... deciding what to do where is not just about producing the best image, but about making the best use of your time and effort, as well as keeping your shooting process streamlined enough that you don't miss a good shot. This is what makes me a bit wary of trying to get it all done in the camera... I can't tell you how many good shots I've missed over the years because I was occupied with some technical matter like pawing thru my bag for the right filter, or fussing with the menus to try another version of the same shot in black and white. It is so much easier to do this kind of stuff later in Photoshop, when I am sitting in front of a nice big monitor (instead of a tiny LCD) and I'm relaxed enough to take my time and do a good job. When I moved to digital it didn't take me long to ditch all my gradient, color correction and soft-focus filters (still carry a polarizer tho) and my experiences in the field are now more fun, more relaxed and more responsive. Likewise, I can do a better black and white shot in channel mixer than I could ever hope do do in-camera, so I just shoot everything in color and work on the black and whites when I get home. I still do some bracketing... but with RAW it isn't always necessary, and if things are happening quickly (as with wildlife or sports), there's really no time for it anyway so I find it's better to just keep paying attention to the next shot rather than worrying about getting a version of each shot that is absolutely perfect. Even though RAW might add some extra steps to the workflow I think in the end we should be thankful to both RAW and Photoshop for making it possible for us to stay a little more 'in the moment' when we've got the camera in our hands.

Hi rbib,

"I guess that you say this because a RAW image has more "bits" for every color than the target (The D7K can shot up to 14bit per color), while a JPEG is limited to 8bit). Then, you can still play with shifting the image. Is this true?"

Sure and more.

RAW captures everything there is to capture.

First and foremost, I'm in favor of anyone doing whatever they want to do. I did a shoot last week that ended up with over 2500 shots that were JPG. Frankly, I didn't want to edit any of them. There's a time when want you want to do is put them in folder and hand them off.

But usually, I like to tinker with the images, a lot actually, and that's where RAW really shines.

As an example, you can take an image outdoors where there is an overexposed sky with clouds and perfectly exposed subject. Making two PSD files from a RAW, one for the subject and one for the clouds, you can mask the clouds in either with and HDR application or using other masking techniques for a breathtaking effect that wasn't available in film days, or only partially if using a split gradient.

Now you can basically use a multitude of gradients an nearly any combination in nearly any location in any shape and ratio.

Furthermore, the tonally and color process is up to the user. One is no longer limited to the reality that was given to them at the moment. They can change it with a wider palette.

I hold no truck with those that say, 'I spent forever there to get it right in the camera, therefore _I'm better_ for it.'

To them I say, 'Jack, you spent a long time there.'

The pudding tastes the same.

Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with nailing what you 'see'. It's all good.

I just prefer to nail what I want my viewer to see.

My best,

Mike

Mike Gunter said:
In RAW, you have +/- 4 stops already. Using layer masks and HDR, you have tremendous range with 1 shot.

I guess that you say this because a RAW image has more "bits" for every color than the target (The D7K can shot up to 14bit per color), while a JPEG is limited to 8bit). Then, you can still play with shifting the image. Is this true?

SquamishPhoto said:
Mike Gunter for the win!

Great advice as always, Mike. I always get the feeling that your approach to digital photography is pretty much how Ansel Adams would have looked at it had he been around to see it develop to where it is now.

Hi all,

I don't think there was anything to win (unless there was a D3s on the line). :-)

Ansel embraced all technology; he even nuked his prints in a microwave to dry them quicker.

He knew exactly where he fit into the photographic world. He wasn't lost in 8x10 like many think. He shot Polaroids, color negative and positive, 35mm, and a bunch of other formats. He wanted to make sure that those formats flourished.

If you think of Photoshop as a darkroom and working in it to constantly improve an image, as one might in a darkroom, Ansel would be at the keyboard and mouse clicking away with "Moonrise".

My best,

Mike