Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Apparently you are both adopting the position thatAre you visualizing a "head-up"-style histogram in the viewfinder?Because it might be easier and faster to adjust exposure while
viewing a live histogram than it would be to repeatedly shoot and
revise exposure settings based on the post-view histogram.
That would be the only way it would be faster. If you have to
glance down at an LCD, you'd be better off having captured the
exact scene that you're trying to evaluate.
Putting in a head-up real-time histogram in a DSLR viewfinder would
be an even greater challenge--with no more than a moment's
timesaving at best. It might be advisable at that point to
determine whether the workflow of examining a histogram is even
logically compatible with trying to follow action in a viewfinder.
If the requirement is for absolute speed (because the real-time
histogram isn't going to save more than a moment), studying a
histogram isn't the path to aboslute speed.
Yes we are defineyly in 'dead horse' territory. Since we have both asked many tmes for a real-life senario where a realtime histogram would be a benefit, and no one has yet to reply with a well constructed reply I can only declared that you flogged the horse to death with hot air.Apparently you are both adopting the position that
1. Having a live histogram on a DSLR will not help a professional.
2. Then rejecting any and all suggestions of situations where
having a live histogram could be an advantage to a professional.
Because this can go on forever, I'm declaring "dead horse." That
there is little to be gained from continuing this discussion.
I'm still missing any of #2 there. Which posts were those?2. Then rejecting any and all suggestions of situations where
having a live histogram could be an advantage to a professional.
...Your aim is to shoot RAW. The Histograms are based on the RAW to
converted RGB space you select.
--
--...Your aim is to shoot RAW. The Histograms are based on the RAW to
converted RGB space you select.
--
Andrew Rodney
Author of Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
I'm still missing any of #2 there. Which posts were those?2. Then rejecting any and all suggestions of situations where
having a live histogram could be an advantage to a professional.
Wayne LarmonAre you visualizing a "head-up"-style histogram in the viewfinder?Because it might be easier and faster to adjust exposure while
viewing a live histogram than it would be to repeatedly shoot and
revise exposure settings based on the post-view histogram.
That would be the only way it would be faster. If you have to
glance down at an LCD, you'd be better off having captured the
exact scene that you're trying to evaluate.
To refresh your memories:Yes we are defineyly in 'dead horse' territory. Since we have bothApparently you are both adopting the position that
1. Having a live histogram on a DSLR will not help a professional.
2. Then rejecting any and all suggestions of situations where
having a live histogram could be an advantage to a professional.
Because this can go on forever, I'm declaring "dead horse." That
there is little to be gained from continuing this discussion.
asked many tmes for a real-life senario where a realtime histogram
would be a benefit, and no one has yet to reply with a well
constructed reply I can only declared that you flogged the horse to
death with hot air.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/message.asp?forum=1014&parent=10917883&thread=10868225Depends on the meter. Most measure luminance. If you have aSlowly evolving situation.
So I snap and look at the hstogram. I still don't see how a "live"
histogram improves my capability to judge the proper exposure. And
what of the times that the correct exposure framing is not the
correct artistic framing? If I "lock" the histogram to reframe, I
might just as well just taken a meter reading and locked that.
Or are we talking about people who don't know how to read a meter?
bright color like red, a good luminance measurement can still
result in blowing out a color channel. Histograms for each color
channel helps see if this is happening. Before I had the color
histograms, I had to estimate the exposure if I had a dominant
color and underexpose to ensure I did not blow a channel. Since I
felt I had to be conservative, I generally lost up to a stop of my
brightness range. Histograms also show how I did in the shadows
and if I should up the exposure (without blowing out a channel) to
get more shadow information. Histograms are nice to have.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/message.asp?forum=1014&parent=10911978&thread=10868225Actually, the advantage would be the ability to judge the exposureI too think the use of a "live historgram" would have limited
applications. from the "snap and make adjustments" feature we now
have. I still haven't seen anyone answer the gentleman's question
regarding the advantage of a live historgram. In sports action, I
can see an advantage if the pic taken isn't repetitive, after the
first pic - if it is repetitive - then reading the last histogram
is just as helpful.
I would see this feature being about as useful as those cameras
with 10 shots per second deals. This feature sounds great, but how
many actually use it? Only a small percentage of photographers
would need this function.
better than the meter in a slowly evolving situation, such as a
sunset. This is not possible in most dslr's because the mirror
must remain in place to look through the viewfinder however, it
should be possible to build in a mode which allows capture and
display along with the histogram much like the A1 does. This will
greatly reduce the battery life, but would be a useful feature for
some.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/message.asp?forum=1014&parent=10926859&thread=10868225Ummm, again...where on earth is that coming from ? When does a toolTherefore a live histogram becomes less useful,
like the histogram become less usefull ? At what point does someone
with {{your words} "decent photographic skills".}} say to
themselves "Self...I'm just soooo dam good, that I don't need that
stinkin histogram thingamaboby."
Simply put (IMHO) Live histograms are the best thing since sliced
bread, I miss having one, and would have gladly paid extra to have
one in my DSLR. A live histogram allowed me to adjust my exposure
according to the tonal values within an image, and shave time, and
storage space by not having to bracket.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=10917955Most are assuming that photographers do only one thing with a
camera and thus can argue for or against any particular feature.
How about versatility? More capability features (and cost) provide
more versatility to get more shots over a wider range of
conditions. I purchased my last camera with versatility in mind
even though I emphasize landscape shots.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/message.asp?forum=1014&parent=10924760&thread=10868225Having a real time histogram might speed up the shot processI keep asking for an example of how a real-time histogram provides
a better picture-creation capability than a post-view histogram.
Nobody's told me yet. We're not worrying about saving film--saving
the calories expended in pressing the shutter release, perhaps?
particularly if it showed a blown color channel. Light meters are
generally based on luminance and strong colors can blow color
channels while a luminance measurement shows an ok exposure.
Well, what were you visualizing? If it's not a head-up display, then it would NOT be easier and faster.Are you visualizing a "head-up"-style histogram in the viewfinder?Because it might be easier and faster to adjust exposure while
viewing a live histogram than it would be to repeatedly shoot and
revise exposure settings based on the post-view histogram.
That would be the only way it would be faster. If you have to
glance down at an LCD, you'd be better off having captured the
exact scene that you're trying to evaluate.
--...Your aim is to shoot RAW. The Histograms are based on the RAW to
converted RGB space you select.
--
Yes, they are once you know how to extrapolate the two. Kind of like viewing a Polaroid for lighting and understanding what it's showing you in relationship to the final chrome.They are still very useful once you know how they relate to the raw
data.
So am I, Other than MF backs, tell me of a pro model..Ie..Nikon D2h/D2x..Canon 1D/1Ds 1DMKII/1DsMKII/ D60..that doesn't have that stupid "auto" program mode stuck in there, do you think it's there for the pro's...I don't think so, So why is it there...Simple...marketing...All major manufacturers rely hevily on the Entusiast/Hobbiest to purchase their units, So your statement that They assume that anyone who would purchase a Pro model DSLR would know everything isn't really accurate.OK, lets just re-phrase that.
I'm talking about professional systems, used by professionals.
Who knows what you'll see at the lower end.
Why not? The existing post-review method requires more steps because you have the additional step of retrieving the picture you just shot before you can examine the histogram. As opposed to examining the live histogram without having to retrieve a picture.Well, what were you visualizing? If it's not a head-up display,Are you visualizing a "head-up"-style histogram in the viewfinder?Because it might be easier and faster to adjust exposure while
viewing a live histogram than it would be to repeatedly shoot and
revise exposure settings based on the post-view histogram.
That would be the only way it would be faster. If you have to
glance down at an LCD, you'd be better off having captured the
exact scene that you're trying to evaluate.
then it would NOT be easier and faster.
I supplied many examples in my response to riddellThis one suggestion "might be easier and faster" falls far short of
what you implied by "rejecting any and all."
Its is going on forever, and I'm begining to think people are just having a joke, because no one has yet to come up with a proper professional based senario. A few people have given reasons why they'd like one, but it is speculation.Again, this could go on forever. Somebody gives reasons why they
consider a live histogram to be desirable and you dismiss it out of
hand. Dead horse.
The thread topic isIts is going on forever, and I'm begining to think people are justAgain, this could go on forever. Somebody gives reasons why they
consider a live histogram to be desirable and you dismiss it out of
hand. Dead horse.
having a joke, because no one has yet to come up with a proper
professional based senario. A few people have given reasons why
they'd like one, but it is speculation.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/message.asp?forum=1014&parent=10868225&thread=10868225Does anyone know if there are any digital SLR's that have a live
histogram display while setting up a shot. In other words, the
output of the metering system on the LCD? I'm not sure how this
could be achieved, but, while I want to move up to a DSLR, I hate
to leave behind the liver histogram mode on my A1.
You are in the pro forum...The reason for wanting a live histogram is stated plainly and
doesn't have anyhing to do with professional use.
...again shall I repeat that you are in the pro forum...Your insistence
on demanding a formal proof on why a live histogram is valuable to
your definition of a professional is off topic for this thread.
??? 'DSLRs are prosumer cameras' right of course they areIt
isn't a stretch to say that DSLRs are prosumer cameras that
professionals also use.
Thankfully with the professional SLR market, manufacturers are intelligent enough to know that professionals will not tolerate gimmicks, and with cameras costing thousands of pounds, and having to work horses, used heavily day in, day out we know what we want.The only thing that matters is if the camera manufacturers monitor
these discussions and decide if adding these features to a DSLR is
a sound business decision--will enough people in the target market
buy such a camera?
To refresh your memory,You are in the pro forum...The reason for wanting a live histogram is stated plainly and
doesn't have anyhing to do with professional use.
...again shall I repeat that you are in the pro forum...Your insistence
on demanding a formal proof on why a live histogram is valuable to
your definition of a professional is off topic for this thread.
Have you visited the 300D forum lately???? 'DSLRs are prosumer cameras' right of course they areIt
isn't a stretch to say that DSLRs are prosumer cameras that
professionals also use.
Sure, I've no problem with advanced amateurs, and I'm happy to help."Welcome to the Pro Digital Talk Forum, the place where
professionals can talk to other professionals and advanced amateurs
can ask questions."
To refresh your memoryThis is the same senario. You are telling me it must be better, but
you cannot provide me any details, professional or advanced amateur
of just how you'll hook that up and achieve better photos.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/message.asp?forum=1014&parent=10938205&thread=10868225The existing post-review method requires more steps
because you have the additional step of retrieving the picture you
just shot before you can examine the histogram. As opposed to
examining the live histogram without having to retrieve a picture.
Is there a corollary to Goodwin's law that applies to ad hominem attacks? If not there should be.Its like banging my head against a brick wall. No wonder salesmen
can sell the crud they do with people like you around.
