It was suggested to me today that the info in a historgam is just showing you the jpeg version, and that this is then of no importance regarding your "RAW file". I was under the impression that the histogram info was not format (Jpeg, Raw) specific.
Could someone please enlighten me on this subject. I have been using the histogram as my main means of determining exposure, and I shoot in RAW, and my images seem to represent what I have shot.
Histograms (RAW versus JPEG)
(45 posts) (16 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
The in-camera histogram is indeed derived from the "JPEG" (processed) version of the image, even when shooting RAW exclusively. There is often more dynamic range present in the RAW file than what is shown on the histogram.
One might view this fact in two different ways:
1) the RAW file has additional "headroom" vs. a "conservative" JPEG histogram, acting as a "safety" feature which isn't a bad thing to have; or,
2) the JPEG histogram is misleading, producing underexposed images which doesn't take full advantage of the sensor's capabilities.
Proponents of "Expose To The Right" (ETTR) tend to more likely agree with view #2.
There are ways to "trick" the camera to produce histograms closer to the RAW data, at the expense of not being able to use shoot JPEG or to judge colors somewhat accurately from the LCD.
Search for UniWB for more information
Posted 2 years ago # -
Thanks Ade Barkah for the insight. I am reading now the info on UniWB, very interesting, and I shall give it a try once I am a little more knowledgeable in this subject matter.
It's makes for a great day, when you learn something new.Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
The thing is, the image preview on your camera is actually a JPEG if I'm right. Camera can't display RAW-files. So it makes sense that the histogram for that image would also be based on the JPEG preview.
Posted 2 years ago # -
the in-camera histogram view is based on jpg files (even when You shoot in RAW). in order to get max out of Your RAW files You should use UNI-WB settings (a profile You can upload into Your WB settings) - Your jpg's will look greenish but You will be able to use the histogram in RAW files (it's a tweak, but works fine, if used properly You should get at least one stop of DR in Your RAW files).
Posted 2 years ago # -
adamz said:
the in-camera histogram view is based on jpg files (even when You shoot in RAW). in order to get max out of Your RAW files You should use UNI-WB settings (a profile You can upload into Your WB settings) - Your jpg's will look greenish but You will be able to use the histogram in RAW files (it's a tweak, but works fine, if used properly You should get at least one stop of DR in Your RAW files).Neat... but this will lead you to shot in RAW. Is this correct? (I mean, that you load the custom WB settings, and then you correct the resulting photo during post-processing?)
Currently I'm learning a lot about Custom WB, which is not limited to RAW or JPEG.
Posted 2 years ago # -
rbid said:
(I mean, that you load the custom WB settings, and then you correct the resulting photo during post-processing?)Currently I'm learning a lot about Custom WB, which is not limited to RAW or JPEG.
If you use lightroom for post production, you have a choice of White balance settings
"As Shot" LR will use whateven WB you have set on the camera
"Auto" LR will adjust the WB for you
"Custom" you can adjust it your self, or use a preset
All the books I have read, say the histogram is based on jpegPosted 2 years ago # -
Oh, you see. Here comes another white balance discussion...
Histogram, Exposure, White Balance, Color profile- all related but not the same thing.
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
Let me sum up this thread a little bit.
If You shoot jpg, than using in-camera histogram is advisable, as it can enhance Your photos.
If You shoot raw, than this what You see on in-camera histogram can foul You, as it only represents jpg. You can enhance it by using the UNI-WB, but it requires some work in PP.As for this what Niko wrote, sure they are not the same but at the same time IMHO this discussion is not turning into WB one. I've mentioned the UNI-WB as a way to use the in-camera histogram to show raw data instead of jpg. Don't know like You but I doesn't know any other way to make in-camera histogram to display raw.
Posted 2 years ago # -
From what I have learned, the histogram is used only to see that you have nailed the correct exposure, that is, that you are not burning the highlights or have more room for the shadows... that is, some kind of Zone System in the digital era...
Now, for RAW, you can gain some extra dynamic range by using the UNI-WB custom settings, with the effect that you need to work more during PP. Is this correct?
@sevencrossing: The Histogram is just a statistical tool the camera gives you, it can help a lot, but also can confuse you a lot, all depends how the light is dispersed on the objects you are shooting, it may help you in deciding what should be well exposed.
@Adamz, What Niko mentioned was because I had a small off-line talk with him regarding a thread I started related to WB tools he has closed. (Filters/Cards/Calibration-Tools)
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
rbid - histogram, when used correctly can nail Your photo giving You more DR, indeed it is a statistical data, but when You know how to use it You can get more from Your files, i.e. if You have a bright scene, You can see it on the histogram and You can play with settings to not over burn the photo and get as much of shadows as You can. w/o histogram You will most likely throw some of Your data away as they would be unavailable for You in PP (in other words, once You cross certain point the sensor doesn't register Your data - with histogram You can squeeze the most from Your sensor = capture only this what can be captured on one hand, and gain some data from the other side, which w/o histogram will be lost)
Posted 2 years ago # -
@adamz: Thanks.
From the D70s, I was used to see a single histogram (I guess it was the Green Channel). On the D7K I have the option to show a single Histogram or the three channels (+ the composite channel) on the back LCD. What do you guys use? (Single or spitted Histogram?)
Question for Photoshop Experts: I saw on images out there, that it is possible to add an embedded histogram thumbnail to an given image. How this is done?
I know a tool by Rory Hill called "Ditto" that does it using the scripting capabilities of Photoshop from Bridge to do it... but I want to do it manually.
Edit: Take a look on the "Ditto" tool (Just Google it), you may like it.
(Disclaimer: I do not have any relationship with Rory Hill, nor with the Ditto tool)Posted 2 years ago # -
Hi Rbid,
I generally use the single histogram.
As for the rest of the thread, I still tend to shoot as the light source dictates, unless it's a quick shoot, then it's automatic and fix in post.
While I get it that many want to 'nail it', there are so many degrees of separation in light difference during daylight, the variation in tungsten lighting, stage lighting, LEDs, candle light, fires, headlights, flashlights, speedlights, and it goes on and on, that it seems so much like chasing rabbits.
I would rather eat glass than look at a greenish representation of what I just shot, too, to increase my 'histogram' efficiency by perhaps 2-3 percent, if that much. I can change what I get by as much as I'm going to see.
I sincerely doubt that thees worries in pre-production will make that much difference in taking the picture, especially if I spend my time wisely in understanding how to "make" the picture I want.
My best,
Mike
Posted 2 years ago # -
@Mike: Thanks for the advice.
For the ones I want to 'nail' as you mention, I use the exposure bracketing mode, in this way, at less I can pick the one that suits, or at most, do some HDR via PP if required. The experience I have with the Zone System from the film era helps as well :)
You are right about the use of the UNI-WB for gaining some dynamic range. I guess that bracketing is the best solution. (If you can take more than one shoot for your photo victim)
Posted 2 years ago # -
One of things I love about this forum is, it make one stop and think, “Can I improve the way I shoot?”
After a bit of playing about, I agree with rbid , Bracketing is by far and away the easiest way to nail the exposurePosted 2 years ago # -
sevencrossing said:
One of things I love about this forum is, it make one stop and think, “Can I improve the way I shoot?”
After a bit of playing about, I agree with rbid , Bracketing is by far and away the easiest way to nail the exposureHi sevencrossing,
In RAW, you have +/- 4 stops already. Using layer masks and HDR, you have tremendous range with 1 shot.
Just saying...
My best,
Mike
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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
Posted 2 years ago # -
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?
Posted 2 years ago # -
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
Posted 2 years ago # -
>> 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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
