In-camera RAW histograms

[JDMvW]

For no particularly good reason:

 

I think these quasi flame wars are part of the charm of this site. "You can savor all the little emotions"

[2Oceans]

Frans,

I have really enjoyed this great teleological discussion.

Come to think of it I have never in my life viewed a raw image even though I shoot raw files. I have always known that but realizing it yet again is a small epiphany.

My understanding is that embedded JPEGs are there to help me make sense of my composition and exposure. That is all I care about and it is otherwisw not a frying pan I want or need to jump into. But thank you just the same for making me consider the possibilities. If I had a raw in camera histogram perhaps it would up my game but I really don’t really know and that’s the honest truth. On the issue of exposing to the right one of the things I think is true is that as a whole we have the increasing opportunity to become sloppy with our image making since we can correct in post and also that recent digital cameras are more forgiving. That said I don’t think it is a reason to give up on being careful with exposures. So I think that Michael Reichmann is still and for the time being correct. When one has to be fast then the practice of good technique is a engram. Also I think that proper technique exposing to the right reduces the differences between digital cameras and also allows us to understand equipment limitations. Thanks again for this conversation. While its not on the level of importance of “do dogs have souls”, it stimulates a good discussion that maybe important in the future.

Stay frosty.

Edited January 8, 2020 by William Michael

[samstevens]

On the issue of exposing to the right

I suggest photographers dress to the right and no indecent exposures ... :eek:

[samstevens]

Stay frosty.

And kudos for working "teleological" into a photo forum! :)

[William Michael]

And kudos for working "teleological" into a photo forum! :)

 

"engram" was a good effort too.

 

WW

[Mark Keefer]

="frans_waterlander, post: 5800689, member: 2220857"]As far as I know, there are no cameras available with in-camera RAW histograms. So why is that? How difficult could it be to write the code?

 

The Canon 5D Mark IV seems to have both color and brightness histograms even in RAW only mode. The Sony A7RIII also seems to have histograms when recording in RAW only. Am I missing something? What cameras do you shoot with?

 

 

 

[Matthew Currie]

The camera is still producing a JPG image. If it did not you woudn't be able to see it on the back screen. The camera's settings for things like white balance and picture control show in the JPG, and the histogram and blown highlight screen are based on the JPG, even if you save only Raw. There's a JPG embedded in the raw file.

[frans_waterlander]

Yes, those histograms are jpegs, not RAWs. The only camera that comes with in-camera RAW histograms in Phase One IQ4 at $52,000. Magic Lantern is a firmware program for certain Canon cameras that has this feature as well.

[andylynn]

Well anyway, to answer the original questions:

 

1. Raw histograms are not included because they are not necessary. Using recent model cameras, the RGB histograms provided are sufficient for all serious photography. Including raw histograms would just further complicate the camera and add customer support headaches as novice to intermediate users who don't really understand the way these things work read discussions like this and then go and shoot a bunch of overexposed snapshots of their cats. Another problem that is avoided by taking the histogram from the jpg preview is that the camera doesn’t have to load and do processing on whole raw files in playback mode, which would really slow down flipping through the images.

 

2. Writing this code would be modestly difficult, certainly within the capabilities of the people camera companies have doing this work.

 

3. Because the JPG is a reasonable enough approximation of how the image will look after raw processing that its histogram can be used to evaluate exposure.

 

4. For some serious photographers, yes. Don't tell this to the guys shooting the Olympics. They shoot low res JPGs that are being relayed to the back room over ethernet, so that the editors can pick the keepers, do quick edits and have them on the wires in a couple of minutes.

 

5. They aren't.

 

6. I do.

Edited January 9, 2020 by andylynn

[frans_waterlander]

Raw histograms are not included because they are not necessary.

That all depends on the user. Snapshooters don't need it. Others need it or want it.

Writing this code would be modestly difficult.

Maybe, maybe not. Magic Lantern folks did it and its free.

Because the JPG is a reasonable enough approximation of how the image will look after raw processing that its histogram can be used to evaluate exposure.

That, again, all depends on the user.