Hi, new forum member here. I'm a casual photographer who is looking to improve my skill and technical knowledge. Last week I overheard a couple of people in a heated discussion at the camera store. One was saying the histogram should be pushed to the right and the other said no, the histogram should be centered. They both seemed pretty insistent that they were right. Which is correct or are they both right?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Histogram at right or center?
- Thread starter Dave691
- Start date
Solution
ElongMusky
Well-known member
- Messages
- 101
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 61
the true answer is that there is no correct exposure. You have to look at the scene and expose it the way you want it.
If most of the photo is in shadow or darkness then your histogram will look mostly all on the left because that’s where all the information is. If it’s a very right scene then it’ll be mostly on the right. If it’s equal amounts it’ll be in the middle.
There's another way to think about that. Unfortunately the term "correct exposure" can cause more arguments than ETTR. Describing it as you do here sounds like film photography language. Film had a tone curve response that had be factored in. A digital camera sensor however records data linearly. Save a raw file (this only applies to working with raw files) and it's a blank slate -- you get to make it whatever you want. And in that case I can use this term: "best possible technical exposure." A best possible technical exposure exists and it's the exposure that fully utilizes the camera sensor's recording capacity.
(We can tack on to the end of that last sentence the qualifier "to the degree possible" because circumstance (motion capture, DOF, low light) may force us to expose less than the sensor's capacity. In that case the best possible technical exposure becomes: expose as much as possible.)
Any exposure less than the full recording capacity of the sensor records less data and lower quality data. I'm prepared to call less and lower quality incorrect. Any exposure more than the full recording capacity of the sensor records less data and is clipping highlights in the image. I'm prepared to call less and clipped highlights incorrect.
Here's some examples (two photos taken walking around the neighborhood):
Those are RawDigger histograms of the raw file data. Exposure info is included. Both photos are from the same Fuji X-T2. Both photos were taken at the camera's base ISO (200). The actual exposures are 1/600, f/5.6 for Mary and 1/600, f/8 for the heart house. However note that there's an EC .3 factor for Mary and an EC 1.7 factor for the house.
Look at the histograms and note the magenta bar. I added that. The magenta bar indicates the saturation limit (sensor capacity). Look at the stats to the right of each green histogram and note the Max value of 15360. The theoretical limit is 2^14 for a camera with a 14 bit ADC. Each camera will be close but slightly different (talk to the engineers). 15360 in the green channel is the saturation limit for that Fuji X-T2 camera and here's the point: I just reached it. Each photo (taken in sunshine) contains some very small specular highlights (reflections) and those should make it to the limit of the sensor's full capacity.
Shape and distribution of the rest of the histograms? Doesn't matter as long as I have usable data -- in both photos I do. It's very rare that I wouldn't with a modern camera.
So the camera exposures are different but as far as I'm concerned they are also both the same exposure in that they are both a full capacity sensor exposure which is the best possible technical exposure. So every photo I take gets the same exposure: Place the brightest diffuse highlight at the sensor saturation limit -- click, and for me that's always the correct exposure.
Last edited:
ElongMusky
Well-known member
- Messages
- 101
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 61
If we look at your histograms it’s what I was trying to say.There's another way to think about that. Unfortunately the term "correct exposure" can cause more arguments than ETTR. Describing it as you do here sounds like film photography language. Film had a tone curve response that had be factored in. A digital camera sensor however records data linearly. Save a raw file (this only applies to working with raw files) and it's a blank slate -- you get to make it whatever you want. And in that case I can use this term: "best possible technical exposure." A best possible technical exposure exists and it's the exposure that fully utilizes the camera sensor's recording capacity.
(We can tack on to the end of that last sentence the qualifier "to the degree possible" because circumstance (motion capture, DOF, low light) may force us to expose less than the sensor's capacity. In that case the best possible technical exposure becomes: expose as much as possible.)
Any exposure less than the full recording capacity of the sensor records less data and lower quality data. I'm prepared to call less and lower quality incorrect. Any exposure more than the full recording capacity of the sensor records less data and is clipping highlights in the image. I'm prepared to call less and clipped highlights incorrect.
Here's some examples (two photos taken walking around the neighborhood):
Those are RawDigger histograms of the raw file data. Exposure info is included. Both photos are from the same Fuji X-T2. Both photos were taken at the camera's base ISO (200). The actual exposures are 1/600, f/5.6 for Mary and 1/600, f/8 for the heart house. However note that there's an EC .3 factor for Mary and an EC 1.7 factor for the house.
Look at the histograms and note the magenta bar. I added that. The magenta bar indicates the saturation limit (sensor capacity). Look at the stats to the right of each green histogram and note the Max value of 15360. The theoretical limit is 2^14 for a camera with a 14 bit ADC. Each camera will be close but slightly different (talk to the engineers). 15360 in the green channel is the saturation limit for that Fuji X-T2 camera and here's the point: I just reached it. Each photo (taken in sunshine) contains some very small specular highlights (reflections) and those should make it to the limit of the sensor's full capacity.
Shape and distribution of the rest of the histograms? Doesn't matter as long as I have usable data -- in both photos I do. It's very rare that I wouldn't with a modern camera.
So the camera exposures are different but as far as I'm concerned they are also both the same exposure in that they are both a full capacity sensor exposure which is the best possible technical exposure. So every photo I take gets the same exposure: Place the brightest diffuse highlight at the sensor saturation limit -- click, and for me that's always the correct exposure.
the house is white. It’s brighter. And the histogram info is going to the right.
The statue is darker in the shadow, so the information is in the middle.
if you go under a bridge the histogram will be on the left.
and everything else you explained is why all three could be considered to be “properly exposed” to use a term everyone understands.
Danno B
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,331
- Reaction score
- 1,058
I think you are misunderstanding what Ysarex is trying to show. Maybe his example images were not the most suitable.
For example, let's consider filling the viewfinder with a black cat.
If you want a nice looking sooc jpeg then yes, most of the histogram data will be on the left. But this is not the correct exposure for me because more light could have been let onto the sensor without clipping highlights.
The correct exposure shooting raw, again for me, would be to let as much light onto the sensor as possible pushing the histogram as far as possible to the right within my DOF and blur constraints without clipping important highlights. This has the benefits I posted earlier.
Now, of course the intial rendering of the raw data will result in the cat looking much lighter/brighter than reality but I then dial back the image lightness in post to what I like.
At the end, both the sooc jpeg and raw file output will look pretty much the same but the benefit of allowing more light onto the sensor is that the final image from the raw file will have noticeably less visible noise than the sooc jpeg.
--
Danno
Canon 90D, 600D, Photoshop Elements with Elements+, Elements XXL
For example, let's consider filling the viewfinder with a black cat.
If you want a nice looking sooc jpeg then yes, most of the histogram data will be on the left. But this is not the correct exposure for me because more light could have been let onto the sensor without clipping highlights.
The correct exposure shooting raw, again for me, would be to let as much light onto the sensor as possible pushing the histogram as far as possible to the right within my DOF and blur constraints without clipping important highlights. This has the benefits I posted earlier.
Now, of course the intial rendering of the raw data will result in the cat looking much lighter/brighter than reality but I then dial back the image lightness in post to what I like.
At the end, both the sooc jpeg and raw file output will look pretty much the same but the benefit of allowing more light onto the sensor is that the final image from the raw file will have noticeably less visible noise than the sooc jpeg.
--
Danno
Canon 90D, 600D, Photoshop Elements with Elements+, Elements XXL
Last edited:
FingerPainter
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,593
- Solutions
- 37
- Reaction score
- 13,643
Where the peak of the histogram is doesn't matter in ETTR. Where the right edge of the non-zero values is placed is what matters.If we look at your histograms it’s what I was trying to say.Any exposure less than the full recording capacity of the sensor records less data and lower quality data. I'm prepared to call less and lower quality incorrect. Any exposure more than the full recording capacity of the sensor records less data and is clipping highlights in the image. I'm prepared to call less and clipped highlights incorrect.
Here's some examples (two photos taken walking around the neighborhood):
Those are RawDigger histograms of the raw file data. Exposure info is included. Both photos are from the same Fuji X-T2. Both photos were taken at the camera's base ISO (200). The actual exposures are 1/600, f/5.6 for Mary and 1/600, f/8 for the heart house. However note that there's an EC .3 factor for Mary and an EC 1.7 factor for the house.
Look at the histograms and note the magenta bar. I added that. The magenta bar indicates the saturation limit (sensor capacity). Look at the stats to the right of each green histogram and note the Max value of 15360. The theoretical limit is 2^14 for a camera with a 14 bit ADC. Each camera will be close but slightly different (talk to the engineers). 15360 in the green channel is the saturation limit for that Fuji X-T2 camera and here's the point: I just reached it. Each photo (taken in sunshine) contains some very small specular highlights (reflections) and those should make it to the limit of the sensor's full capacity.
Shape and distribution of the rest of the histograms? Doesn't matter as long as I have usable data -- in both photos I do. It's very rare that I wouldn't with a modern camera.
So the camera exposures are different but as far as I'm concerned they are also both the same exposure in that they are both a full capacity sensor exposure which is the best possible technical exposure. So every photo I take gets the same exposure: Place the brightest diffuse highlight at the sensor saturation limit -- click, and for me that's always the correct exposure.
the house is white. It’s brighter. And the histogram info is going to the right.
Imagine that the house and every other white object in the house picture wasn't white, but middle grey instead. If Ysarex took an ETTR shot of that scene, he'd use an even higher exposure. The peak of the histogram would be even farther to the right, not in the middle like you seem to think.
No it wouldn't. If you built a bridge over that white house and shaded everything in the scene, an ETTR photo of it would have a histogram that looked the same as his actual white house pic had. He would have had to use a slower shutter though to get that histogram.
I doubt very many people understand that term.
Danno B
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,331
- Reaction score
- 1,058
<snip>
It seems to me that the vast majority of people who say "properly exposed" actually mean to say "properly lightened" which would make much more sense in the context of what they were saying than "properly exposed" does.
--
Danno
Canon 90D, 600D, Photoshop Elements with Elements+, Elements XXL
It certainly appears that way.
It seems to me that the vast majority of people who say "properly exposed" actually mean to say "properly lightened" which would make much more sense in the context of what they were saying than "properly exposed" does.
--
Danno
Canon 90D, 600D, Photoshop Elements with Elements+, Elements XXL
Last edited:
ElongMusky
Well-known member
- Messages
- 101
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 61
If you put the house in the shade and push the histogram to the right of course. But that’s not what you were looking at. And that’s exactly what I’m saying. Shadows should be shadows. It’s this bad habit of people to try to get rid of shadows and push them to the right all the time. If you push the house in the shadow to the right now the sky is blown (or could be).
You should be exposing for the brightest part. That’s all. If all you’re shooting is the house in the shadow then yea. Everything is evenly exposed. But if the house is in the shadow with a Bridge going over it and you’re trying to capture the house the bridge and the sky and you push the house to the right then you’re going to blow the sky.
You should be exposing for the brightest part. That’s all. If all you’re shooting is the house in the shadow then yea. Everything is evenly exposed. But if the house is in the shadow with a Bridge going over it and you’re trying to capture the house the bridge and the sky and you push the house to the right then you’re going to blow the sky.
Last edited:
ElongMusky
Well-known member
- Messages
- 101
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 61
I am so sorry forever. From now on if I say “properly exposed” I mean “properly lightened”. Now you don’t have to remind me.
FingerPainter
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,593
- Solutions
- 37
- Reaction score
- 13,643
Were we not talking about ETTR and RAW histograms? With ETTR , if there are no tones above middle grey in the scene, much of what was shadow in the scene may come out of the camera as rather lighter than shadows. Once you take an ETTR photo, you have to adjust lightness in development to get the image lightness back to where you want it.
Sure, and if the brightest part is not much lighter than middle grey, then your ETTR image is going to be too light SOOC.
I was assuming the bridge shaded evreythign visible - so no sky.
Does the sky have the same tonal value as the white house? I doubt it. So when we replace the white house with a grey house, either by using paint or shade, we can increase the exposure somewhat without blowing the sky. And if it is a clear blue sky, we may not even care if it is blown since there is no detail in it.
Both histograms reach the same right side. The histogram for the house is not farther right than the histogram for the statue. In fact the statue has relatively larger specular highlights and so it's histogram is just a smidge more right than the house -- compare the OvExp/UnExp stats for each.If we look at your histograms it’s what I was trying to say.There's another way to think about that. Unfortunately the term "correct exposure" can cause more arguments than ETTR. Describing it as you do here sounds like film photography language. Film had a tone curve response that had be factored in. A digital camera sensor however records data linearly. Save a raw file (this only applies to working with raw files) and it's a blank slate -- you get to make it whatever you want. And in that case I can use this term: "best possible technical exposure." A best possible technical exposure exists and it's the exposure that fully utilizes the camera sensor's recording capacity.
(We can tack on to the end of that last sentence the qualifier "to the degree possible" because circumstance (motion capture, DOF, low light) may force us to expose less than the sensor's capacity. In that case the best possible technical exposure becomes: expose as much as possible.)
Any exposure less than the full recording capacity of the sensor records less data and lower quality data. I'm prepared to call less and lower quality incorrect. Any exposure more than the full recording capacity of the sensor records less data and is clipping highlights in the image. I'm prepared to call less and clipped highlights incorrect.
Here's some examples (two photos taken walking around the neighborhood):
Those are RawDigger histograms of the raw file data. Exposure info is included. Both photos are from the same Fuji X-T2. Both photos were taken at the camera's base ISO (200). The actual exposures are 1/600, f/5.6 for Mary and 1/600, f/8 for the heart house. However note that there's an EC .3 factor for Mary and an EC 1.7 factor for the house.
Look at the histograms and note the magenta bar. I added that. The magenta bar indicates the saturation limit (sensor capacity). Look at the stats to the right of each green histogram and note the Max value of 15360. The theoretical limit is 2^14 for a camera with a 14 bit ADC. Each camera will be close but slightly different (talk to the engineers). 15360 in the green channel is the saturation limit for that Fuji X-T2 camera and here's the point: I just reached it. Each photo (taken in sunshine) contains some very small specular highlights (reflections) and those should make it to the limit of the sensor's full capacity.
Shape and distribution of the rest of the histograms? Doesn't matter as long as I have usable data -- in both photos I do. It's very rare that I wouldn't with a modern camera.
So the camera exposures are different but as far as I'm concerned they are also both the same exposure in that they are both a full capacity sensor exposure which is the best possible technical exposure. So every photo I take gets the same exposure: Place the brightest diffuse highlight at the sensor saturation limit -- click, and for me that's always the correct exposure.
the house is white. It’s brighter. And the histogram info is going to the right.
The statue is darker in the shadow, so the information is in the middle.
Both histograms indicate that the sensor is fully exposed to the same maximum value.
Footski
Senior Member
I have yet again been forced to step in to stop a 5TT ally useless argument between two members who are doing nothing to help our beginners. What was a sensible question could well have been ruined. Enough is enough.
Danno B
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,331
- Reaction score
- 1,058
I agree with everything you have said as its pretty much what I aim for on every shot as well.........but.......especially in a beginners forum and for the sake of clarity imo it would be better and clearer if the last sentence above was:There's another way to think about that. Unfortunately the term "correct exposure" can cause more arguments than ETTR. Describing it as you do here sounds like film photography language. Film had a tone curve response that had be factored in. A digital camera sensor however records data linearly. Save a raw file (this only applies to working with raw files) and it's a blank slate -- you get to make it whatever you want. And in that case I can use this term: "best possible technical exposure." A best possible technical exposure exists and it's the exposure that fully utilizes the camera sensor's recording capacity.
(We can tack on to the end of that last sentence the qualifier "to the degree possible" because circumstance (motion capture, DOF, low light) may force us to expose less than the sensor's capacity. In that case the best possible technical exposure becomes: expose as much as possible.)
Any exposure less than the full recording capacity of the sensor records less data and lower quality data. I'm prepared to call less and lower quality incorrect. Any exposure more than the full recording capacity of the sensor records less data and is clipping highlights in the image. I'm prepared to call less and clipped highlights incorrect.
Here's some examples (two photos taken walking around the neighborhood):
Those are RawDigger histograms of the raw file data. Exposure info is included. Both photos are from the same Fuji X-T2. Both photos were taken at the camera's base ISO (200). The actual exposures are 1/600, f/5.6 for Mary and 1/600, f/8 for the heart house. However note that there's an EC .3 factor for Mary and an EC 1.7 factor for the house.
Look at the histograms and note the magenta bar. I added that. The magenta bar indicates the saturation limit (sensor capacity). Look at the stats to the right of each green histogram and note the Max value of 15360. The theoretical limit is 2^14 for a camera with a 14 bit ADC. Each camera will be close but slightly different (talk to the engineers). 15360 in the green channel is the saturation limit for that Fuji X-T2 camera and here's the point: I just reached it. Each photo (taken in sunshine) contains some very small specular highlights (reflections) and those should make it to the limit of the sensor's full capacity.
Shape and distribution of the rest of the histograms? Doesn't matter as long as I have usable data -- in both photos I do. It's very rare that I wouldn't with a modern camera.
So the camera exposures are different but as far as I'm concerned they are also both the same exposure in that they are both a full capacity sensor exposure which is the best possible technical exposure. So every photo I take gets the same exposure:
"So every photo I take gets the same type of exposure" and then explain what you mean as you have done so.
In the future if you just said "So every photo I take gets the same exposure" without any clarification it will most likely be very confusing to any beginner just starting to get their head around exposure being the amount of light striking the sensor per unit area. A reasonable question they could ask is how can every photo get the same exposure if there was no clarification.
Anyway, just my 2c tip fwiw. I'm not looking for another back and forth "argument". I have already been rapped over the knuckles by our moderator and they're still a bit sore
--
Danno
Canon 90D, 600D, Photoshop Elements with Elements+, Elements XXL
Last edited:
No, that last sentence as it stands is accurate -- I do mean same exposure literally and not same type of exposure. In your next paragraph you define exposure correctly as the "amount of light striking the sensor per unit area." In every photo I take my goal is to expose the sensor in my camera to the sensor's full capacity. That's a fixed constant determined by the sensor which does not change it's level of sensitivity. Look at the stats for the two photos above. There's a one stop difference between 1/600 sec. f/5.6 and 1/600 sec f/8 and there's a one stop difference due to the change in the angle of the sunlight such that in both photos the brightest diffuse highlight is exposing the sensor with the same amount of light per unit area.I agree with everything you have said as its pretty much what I aim for on every shot as well.........but.......especially in a beginners forum and for the sake of clarity imo it would be better and clearer if the last sentence above was:There's another way to think about that. Unfortunately the term "correct exposure" can cause more arguments than ETTR. Describing it as you do here sounds like film photography language. Film had a tone curve response that had be factored in. A digital camera sensor however records data linearly. Save a raw file (this only applies to working with raw files) and it's a blank slate -- you get to make it whatever you want. And in that case I can use this term: "best possible technical exposure." A best possible technical exposure exists and it's the exposure that fully utilizes the camera sensor's recording capacity.
(We can tack on to the end of that last sentence the qualifier "to the degree possible" because circumstance (motion capture, DOF, low light) may force us to expose less than the sensor's capacity. In that case the best possible technical exposure becomes: expose as much as possible.)
Any exposure less than the full recording capacity of the sensor records less data and lower quality data. I'm prepared to call less and lower quality incorrect. Any exposure more than the full recording capacity of the sensor records less data and is clipping highlights in the image. I'm prepared to call less and clipped highlights incorrect.
Here's some examples (two photos taken walking around the neighborhood):
Those are RawDigger histograms of the raw file data. Exposure info is included. Both photos are from the same Fuji X-T2. Both photos were taken at the camera's base ISO (200). The actual exposures are 1/600, f/5.6 for Mary and 1/600, f/8 for the heart house. However note that there's an EC .3 factor for Mary and an EC 1.7 factor for the house.
Look at the histograms and note the magenta bar. I added that. The magenta bar indicates the saturation limit (sensor capacity). Look at the stats to the right of each green histogram and note the Max value of 15360. The theoretical limit is 2^14 for a camera with a 14 bit ADC. Each camera will be close but slightly different (talk to the engineers). 15360 in the green channel is the saturation limit for that Fuji X-T2 camera and here's the point: I just reached it. Each photo (taken in sunshine) contains some very small specular highlights (reflections) and those should make it to the limit of the sensor's full capacity.
Shape and distribution of the rest of the histograms? Doesn't matter as long as I have usable data -- in both photos I do. It's very rare that I wouldn't with a modern camera.
So the camera exposures are different but as far as I'm concerned they are also both the same exposure in that they are both a full capacity sensor exposure which is the best possible technical exposure. So every photo I take gets the same exposure:
"So every photo I take gets the same type of exposure" and then explain what you mean as you have done so.
The needed qualification is in my second paragraph above where given circumstance I would settle for less exposure if forced. But given that I personally don't photograph sports or action and I have three tripods and a monopod that I use regularly, that rarely happens and every photo I take gets the same exposure: Place the brightest diffuse highlight at the sensor saturation limit -- click.
If I wasn't clear enough it would be in the first sentence of this paragraph where I begin with, "So the camera exposures are different..." -- it might be better if I said; so the camera exposure parameters are different (obviously compensating for the change in light intensity). However if we write with such minute and anal precision our writing becomes so cumbersome it's unreadable. Some happy medium is best.
In the future if you just said "So every photo I take gets the same exposure" without any clarification it will most likely be very confusing to any beginner just starting to get their head around exposure being the amount of light striking the sensor per unit area. A reasonable question they could ask is how can every photo get the same exposure if there was no clarification.
Anyway, just my 2c tip fwiw. I'm not looking for another back and forth "argument". I have already been rapped over the knuckles by our moderator and they're still a bit sore
Wow. I had heard that about this forum, but wow. Still, I think I did get a good answer to my questions, so thank you for that. Not sure why some people have to repeat the same things over and over, though. Thank you to most people here, at least I understand the argument a little better.
chrisfisheye
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,005
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 1,403
Ideally, there is no reason to push the histogram to the right if the image becomes too bright. The only reason to push the histogram to the right should be when you want to have a brighter image. Do not misinterpret my post, I said ideally.
If you want more exposure, then simply add more exposure, NOT lightness !!!
The ETTR workflow is certainly not ideal. The scene appears too bright in the viewfinder, you have to correct lightness in post... This does not really makes sense if you think about it.
If you had the right tools, you should be able to do what you want without changing the histogram.
A common way to do it is to use the "exposure" compensation. You want more exposure, then using the EC should be spot on !!! Well, it can add exposure for sure but at the same time it adds lightness. It is not really an exposure compensation...
The real exposure compensation exists in fact, it is by using extending low ISO. It does what you want, maximise exposure without changing the lightness of your image. The major problem with that is you don't have the right tools, you would need something like an exposure histogram (though you can estimate the exposure margin when you are at base ISO) . Also the EC can be adjusted more accurately.
So theorically and ideally, there is absolutely no reason to push the histogram to the right !!!. In practice, this is the preferred method with current implementation.
Solution
Danno B
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,331
- Reaction score
- 1,058
That is way too much of a generalisation without any clarification imo.
In fairness I think you should clarify what circumstances you are referring to because as has been posted by many people, setting exposure for sooc and raw outputs can be significantly different.
If your comments are based on sooc jpegs then I pretty much agree but if shooting raw then I totally disagree because the ETTR technique has very clear benefits, especially in low light situations, as several have posted earlier, including Ysarex with his charts even though he doesn’t call it ETTR, so need to repeat here.
--
Danno
Canon 90D, 600D, Photoshop Elements with Elements+, Elements XXL
Last edited:
Not if you're processing raw files.
Theoretically and ideally all of my cameras would have a switch that stopped the camera from making a JPEG and so stopped the camera from displaying a histogram and I could happily continue exposing my sensors to their full capacity achieving the exposure that yields the best possible image quality. In practice that's what I do and as I noted above I don't call what I do ETTR -- avoids the nonsense.
There is an exposure that produces the best possible IQ from a raw file -- expose the sensor to capacity. If you allow the lightness of the JPEG the camera creates to interfere with exposing the sensor to capacity then you're not getting the best possible IQ from a raw file. Plain and simply easy.
Last edited:
Quarkcharmed
Senior Member
It all makes sense of you understand how ETTR works.
Middle grey point offset is a bad replacement for EC.
It doesn't maximise the exposure (or you simply don't understand what a maximisation is as follows from our discussion in the maxed out thread).
Very wrong conclusion.
chrisfisheye
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,005
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 1,403
It appears in the viewfinder brighter than it should. Why ?
It also appears too bright by default in your raw editor by default... why ?
If you want more exposure, simply add more exposure but the brightness should NOT change.
Instead of using +1EC, use ISO 1 stop lower and the result in raw is exactly the same !!!!! Anybody can check this, with rawdigger for instance.
In practice though, as I said in my post, I understand that it is more convenient to use the EC but the reason is more that we don't have the right tools. Ideally there is absolutely no reason to shift the lightness histogram to the right.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum