Do you ever use the histogram?

Can it be used exclusively as a guide to exposure? Just ignore everything else and move the compensation dial until the histogram looks right?

Only editing.

Like the others, more useful in post processing of RAW files, I use it 'live' once in a blue moon.

In the camera, rarely. In post, nearly every time. I prefer Levels to Curves in Photoshop for adjusting the span and gamma, and curves only when I wish to use a profile other than linear.

 

I used camera histograms much more often in the early days of digital. Metering is so good now, histograms are mostly obsolete. Sony has options within matrix metering to prioritize highlights (to prevent overexposure) or faces. Life is good.

If you want the best possible file to work with you should use ET (Expose Right) aka ETTR (Expose To The Right) and when you do, you need the histogram in-camera to guide you. I use ER maybe half the time I shoot, mostly for landscapes and cityscapes, so yes, I use the in-camera histogram quite a bit. In post-processing I use it all the time; I don't understand how anybody would post-process without it.

 

With regard to Levels and Curves, they are totally different tools IMHO; Levels allows you to stretch the data to cover the full range between black and pure white if so desired; Curves allows you to adjust brightness, either along a smooth curve or selectively, like adjusting contrast.

Edited September 8, 2018 by frans_waterlander

Levels and curves use the same data with a different point of view. In Curves, you can "stretch" the data (set new black and white points) by moving the end points of the curve. The big difference is control over the slope (gamma) in curves. That done, it's a good idea to check the results in Levels to make sure you haven't clipped the ends or opened up gaps in the curve, which indicate banding.

Interesting point, Ed. I never thought of using Curves to set the end points. Maybe too much is going on at the same time when you do. I'll give it a try.

Headline: "yes" / exclusively?: "probably?" Exposure compensation? - How should that work? - its hidden deep in some menu and could influence either Auto ISO or shutter speed according to the continuous light meter. - I am exposing with manual strobes and aperture rings both out of my camera's reach.

 

Histogram guesswork combined with burned out highlight indication seems the best way to judge my exposure.

 

No, I don't expose according to some histogram preview; I am content with auto exposure or conventional metering.

As I shoot film, only in editing - but often,

Never use it.

The meters in today's cameras are pretty darn good offering, in terms of exposure, a WYSIWYG. I use a Fuji X camera in spot mode and just move the spot around to get the exposure I like quickly. I lock-it than compose focus and shoot. All with the camera up at the eye. Never really needed to look at the histogram while shooting.

As above, most of the time you don't need it, but when you do, it is really nice to have.

 

For high contrast scenes, as with film, the problem is to keep the shadows without

blowing out the highlights. The histogram can easily tell you how far you are away

on each end.

ive never used it but im only shooting digital for 6 years. i have no idea how histograms work. ive been shooting film all my life.

 

i wish someone would explain how looking at graphs rather than the picture makes any sense?

Paul,

 

Where do I begin and how many hours do you have? I strongly suggest you read up on it. Oodles of good and bad information on the internet. This is like Digital Photography 101.

The newer cameras also make RAW obsolete.

i wish someone would explain how looking at graphs rather than the picture makes any sense?

One thing I’ve done since starting photography, and I continue to do, is IMPROVE my eye. I use many tools for this. I look at other photos and paintings, I take long photographic walks without my camera, I talk to photographers whose work I like, I go to a lot of museums and galleries. I read. I learn. Yes, I think we can learn how to see better.

 

A histogram is just one tool to fine tune how we see. You may or may not find it helpful in the long run, but graphs and numbers shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. It would be like saying Adams completely wasted his time focusing on the zone system. He should have just looked at the pictures. There are details and subtleties that graphs and numbers and systems can help us notice and refine.

 

I’ve seen many photos that are tonally flat, lack contrast, or where highlights are badly blown or shadows badly muddied. A little reading on how a histogram works could help the photographer’s eye discover and realize the unsightliness of these things in a photo, since their eye alone is obviously not doing the trick. Maybe.

Edited September 10, 2018 by The Shadow

People use the tools they need to be satisfied with their results. Some use / need more, some less. As the old saying goes "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" in this case, the viewing - posts or portfolio.

I use the histogram when I am shooting ice, comes in handy. I never use it post processing, maybe I should. I am old and gray and nodding by the fire but am always open to new ideas.

The newer cameras also make RAW obsolete

 

Really? Could you explain how that is so?

i wish someone would explain how looking at graphs rather than the picture makes any sense?

 

In-camera: with all it's limitations, the histogram tells you a lot about your exposure: if your are over- or under-exposing, blowing highlights or burying shadow details in noise, if the dynamic range of your subject is exceeding your camera's dynamic range, if you are Exposing Right (if that's what you want to do), etc.

In post-processing, you can use the histogram to see if you are clipping shadows or highlights, if your whites are white and your black are black, if your editing has caused holes in your tonal curves, etc.

 

Yes, you can make the argument that if you look close enough, you don't need no stinking histograms. Can you really judge your expose when looking at a small LCD image on the back of your camera, in full sunlight? Can you really stay within the dynamic range of the work space when editing? IMHO the histogram is a very powerful tool and it's up to you to make the best use of it. If you are perfectly capable of taking perfect shots and do a perfect job of post-processing without using histograms, more power to you, but many, less perfect people would benefit from using histograms, both in the learning phase and execution phases of photography.

There are very few things in life that are "perfect" but myriad that are delightful. Excessive pursuit of the former can can render the latter dull and lifeless. By all means use the tools you need to get results that please you, but do not attempt to subject others to the methodology you have chosen for yourself as the only path to success. A bit like the hairy old joke about the Ivy Leaguer and "romance". By the time he got the trees in his shoes, the lady was gone.

At the end of it all show examples to prove your point.

At the end of it all show examples to prove your point.

 

Examples of how to use histograms and what they can do for you are all over the place in photo editing software manuals, photo editing books, photo forums and the internet in general. Do I need to show how under- and over-exposed images look like or how histograms look like? I don't think so.

Examples of your results - I thought not.

Examples of your results - I thought not.

 

Oh, come on Sandy. The sources I mentioned do a better job of explaining histograms than I could ever do. Is it your job to harass people here?

Show & tell = credibility. Strong opinion and aggressive expression require "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" in this case, the viewing - posts or portfolio.