Do JPEG Styles alter the histogram?

nnowak wrote:

m100 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

m100 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

m100 wrote:

StrugglingforLight wrote:

I haven't found a definite solution. Since I don't fully understand the histogram behavior with different styles to accurately expose to the right, just exposing to what I feel is the "correct exposure". In raw, I do tend to expose a bit to the right. It would be nice if the camera had zebras function but I don't think it does.

I just keep it in the standard picture style unless I'm shooting raw+jpg, in which case I shoot for the out of camera jpg and not post (raw).

Right ?

You got me studying on it though !

I did find when the camera is connected to my computer using EOS Utility with live view on the computer screen I can see the histogram change when I select different picture styles in the main control panel.

You didn't need to go through the trouble of hooking up the EOS Utility. The in-camera histogram clearly moves with changes to picture style settings, even if the camera is set to RAW only. While harder to see, significant changes to the white balance will also move the histogram.

That is a product photography setup. It stays hooked up until I run out of stuff to sell ?

The camera in the scene is too dark ? Histogram is not much use in this case ?

Were those quesiotions?

Yes. I am questioning everything ?

Wasn't sure since your posts tend to have more question marks than periods.

Looking at your setup, I am assuming you are going for a look where the product is well lit and the background gets completely blown out to pure white. This would give your histogram a huge spike on the right side and another spike somewhere else corresponding to the color and illumination of the object. With your sample above, there is a massive spike on the right corresponding to your background and another big spike near the left side for the black camera. The histogram is far less important than getting a good exposure for the product.

That is a lot different from landscape photography where you are trying to ensure nothing in the scene gets blown out. Shadows can be brought up in post, but blown highlights are gone forever. For landscape photography, a flat picture style would be used and the exposure adjusted to just barely touch the right side of the histogram. The resulting live view/JPEG may look pretty bad, but the RAW file will have the best possible adjustability. Using a high contrast and/or high saturation picture style will make it look like you are hitting the right side of the histogram earlier than reality.

I hear what you are saying.

Late at night the other day this almost made sense to me !

He says he likes it for stills in raw too.

https://prolost.com/blog/2012/4/10/prolost-flat.html

Not for me ?  i don't think so ? Not for stills ?

m100 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

m100 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

m100 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

m100 wrote:

StrugglingforLight wrote:

I haven't found a definite solution. Since I don't fully understand the histogram behavior with different styles to accurately expose to the right, just exposing to what I feel is the "correct exposure". In raw, I do tend to expose a bit to the right. It would be nice if the camera had zebras function but I don't think it does.

I just keep it in the standard picture style unless I'm shooting raw+jpg, in which case I shoot for the out of camera jpg and not post (raw).

Right ?

You got me studying on it though !

I did find when the camera is connected to my computer using EOS Utility with live view on the computer screen I can see the histogram change when I select different picture styles in the main control panel.

You didn't need to go through the trouble of hooking up the EOS Utility. The in-camera histogram clearly moves with changes to picture style settings, even if the camera is set to RAW only. While harder to see, significant changes to the white balance will also move the histogram.

That is a product photography setup. It stays hooked up until I run out of stuff to sell ?

The camera in the scene is too dark ? Histogram is not much use in this case ?

Were those quesiotions?

Yes. I am questioning everything ?

Wasn't sure since your posts tend to have more question marks than periods.

Looking at your setup, I am assuming you are going for a look where the product is well lit and the background gets completely blown out to pure white. This would give your histogram a huge spike on the right side and another spike somewhere else corresponding to the color and illumination of the object. With your sample above, there is a massive spike on the right corresponding to your background and another big spike near the left side for the black camera. The histogram is far less important than getting a good exposure for the product.

That is a lot different from landscape photography where you are trying to ensure nothing in the scene gets blown out. Shadows can be brought up in post, but blown highlights are gone forever. For landscape photography, a flat picture style would be used and the exposure adjusted to just barely touch the right side of the histogram. The resulting live view/JPEG may look pretty bad, but the RAW file will have the best possible adjustability. Using a high contrast and/or high saturation picture style will make it look like you are hitting the right side of the histogram earlier than reality.

I hear what you are saying.

Late at night the other day this almost made sense to me !

He says he likes it for stills in raw too.

https://prolost.com/blog/2012/4/10/prolost-flat.html

Not for me ? i don't think so ? Not for stills ?

The only thing you have to get used to is that it’s easy to underexpose slightly if you judge exposure by the preview image, as the Prolost Flat preview is brighter in the shadows than most default raw processing.

nnowak wrote:

m100 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

m100 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

m100 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

m100 wrote:

StrugglingforLight wrote:

I haven't found a definite solution. Since I don't fully understand the histogram behavior with different styles to accurately expose to the right, just exposing to what I feel is the "correct exposure". In raw, I do tend to expose a bit to the right. It would be nice if the camera had zebras function but I don't think it does.

I just keep it in the standard picture style unless I'm shooting raw+jpg, in which case I shoot for the out of camera jpg and not post (raw).

Right ?

You got me studying on it though !

I did find when the camera is connected to my computer using EOS Utility with live view on the computer screen I can see the histogram change when I select different picture styles in the main control panel.

You didn't need to go through the trouble of hooking up the EOS Utility. The in-camera histogram clearly moves with changes to picture style settings, even if the camera is set to RAW only. While harder to see, significant changes to the white balance will also move the histogram.

That is a product photography setup. It stays hooked up until I run out of stuff to sell ?

The camera in the scene is too dark ? Histogram is not much use in this case ?

Were those quesiotions?

Yes. I am questioning everything ?

Wasn't sure since your posts tend to have more question marks than periods.

Looking at your setup, I am assuming you are going for a look where the product is well lit and the background gets completely blown out to pure white. This would give your histogram a huge spike on the right side and another spike somewhere else corresponding to the color and illumination of the object. With your sample above, there is a massive spike on the right corresponding to your background and another big spike near the left side for the black camera. The histogram is far less important than getting a good exposure for the product.

That is a lot different from landscape photography where you are trying to ensure nothing in the scene gets blown out. Shadows can be brought up in post, but blown highlights are gone forever. For landscape photography, a flat picture style would be used and the exposure adjusted to just barely touch the right side of the histogram. The resulting live view/JPEG may look pretty bad, but the RAW file will have the best possible adjustability. Using a high contrast and/or high saturation picture style will make it look like you are hitting the right side of the histogram earlier than reality.

I hear what you are saying.

Late at night the other day this almost made sense to me !

He says he likes it for stills in raw too.

https://prolost.com/blog/2012/4/10/prolost-flat.html

Not for me ? i don't think so ? Not for stills ?

Those setting could be used for stills too, but setting sharpness to zero would not be necessary. You could probably find some alternate settings that might be a bit better, but the Prolost is a step in the right direction.

That is good because the sharpness setting is the one I like to turn up for best focus peaking performance.

Thank you for your answers.  I am a newbee steep on the learning curve too.

Photography keeps my old brain still wanting to learn more !

MAC wrote:

m100 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

m100 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

m100 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

m100 wrote:

StrugglingforLight wrote:

I haven't found a definite solution. Since I don't fully understand the histogram behavior with different styles to accurately expose to the right, just exposing to what I feel is the "correct exposure". In raw, I do tend to expose a bit to the right. It would be nice if the camera had zebras function but I don't think it does.

I just keep it in the standard picture style unless I'm shooting raw+jpg, in which case I shoot for the out of camera jpg and not post (raw).

Right ?

You got me studying on it though !

I did find when the camera is connected to my computer using EOS Utility with live view on the computer screen I can see the histogram change when I select different picture styles in the main control panel.

You didn't need to go through the trouble of hooking up the EOS Utility. The in-camera histogram clearly moves with changes to picture style settings, even if the camera is set to RAW only. While harder to see, significant changes to the white balance will also move the histogram.

That is a product photography setup. It stays hooked up until I run out of stuff to sell ?

The camera in the scene is too dark ? Histogram is not much use in this case ?

Were those quesiotions?

Yes. I am questioning everything ?

Wasn't sure since your posts tend to have more question marks than periods.

Looking at your setup, I am assuming you are going for a look where the product is well lit and the background gets completely blown out to pure white. This would give your histogram a huge spike on the right side and another spike somewhere else corresponding to the color and illumination of the object. With your sample above, there is a massive spike on the right corresponding to your background and another big spike near the left side for the black camera. The histogram is far less important than getting a good exposure for the product.

That is a lot different from landscape photography where you are trying to ensure nothing in the scene gets blown out. Shadows can be brought up in post, but blown highlights are gone forever. For landscape photography, a flat picture style would be used and the exposure adjusted to just barely touch the right side of the histogram. The resulting live view/JPEG may look pretty bad, but the RAW file will have the best possible adjustability. Using a high contrast and/or high saturation picture style will make it look like you are hitting the right side of the histogram earlier than reality.

I hear what you are saying.

Late at night the other day this almost made sense to me !

He says he likes it for stills in raw too.

https://prolost.com/blog/2012/4/10/prolost-flat.html

Not for me ? i don't think so ? Not for stills ?

The only thing you have to get used to is that it’s easy to underexpose slightly if you judge exposure by the preview image, as the Prolost Flat preview is brighter in the shadows than most default raw processing.

Thanks,  good to know.  I find this interesting.

m100 wrote:

MAC wrote:

m100 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

m100 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

m100 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

m100 wrote:

StrugglingforLight wrote:

I haven't found a definite solution. Since I don't fully understand the histogram behavior with different styles to accurately expose to the right, just exposing to what I feel is the "correct exposure". In raw, I do tend to expose a bit to the right. It would be nice if the camera had zebras function but I don't think it does.

I just keep it in the standard picture style unless I'm shooting raw+jpg, in which case I shoot for the out of camera jpg and not post (raw).

Right ?

You got me studying on it though !

I did find when the camera is connected to my computer using EOS Utility with live view on the computer screen I can see the histogram change when I select different picture styles in the main control panel.

You didn't need to go through the trouble of hooking up the EOS Utility. The in-camera histogram clearly moves with changes to picture style settings, even if the camera is set to RAW only. While harder to see, significant changes to the white balance will also move the histogram.

That is a product photography setup. It stays hooked up until I run out of stuff to sell ?

The camera in the scene is too dark ? Histogram is not much use in this case ?

Were those quesiotions?

Yes. I am questioning everything ?

Wasn't sure since your posts tend to have more question marks than periods.

Looking at your setup, I am assuming you are going for a look where the product is well lit and the background gets completely blown out to pure white. This would give your histogram a huge spike on the right side and another spike somewhere else corresponding to the color and illumination of the object. With your sample above, there is a massive spike on the right corresponding to your background and another big spike near the left side for the black camera. The histogram is far less important than getting a good exposure for the product.

That is a lot different from landscape photography where you are trying to ensure nothing in the scene gets blown out. Shadows can be brought up in post, but blown highlights are gone forever. For landscape photography, a flat picture style would be used and the exposure adjusted to just barely touch the right side of the histogram. The resulting live view/JPEG may look pretty bad, but the RAW file will have the best possible adjustability. Using a high contrast and/or high saturation picture style will make it look like you are hitting the right side of the histogram earlier than reality.

I hear what you are saying.

Late at night the other day this almost made sense to me !

He says he likes it for stills in raw too.

https://prolost.com/blog/2012/4/10/prolost-flat.html

Not for me ? i don't think so ? Not for stills ?

The only thing you have to get used to is that it’s easy to underexpose slightly if you judge exposure by the preview image, as the Prolost Flat preview is brighter in the shadows than most default raw processing.

Thanks, good to know. I find this interesting.

try it and let me know

use the flat settings, except for sharpness, increase those

then expose to give you the best histogram with as little clipping as possible

when I was doing ETTR years ago I discovered that there is about 1 to 2 stops of headroom that can be recovered in the highlights with raw, and because of low dynamic range and noise in the shadows, it was better to clip a bit on the right versus clip a lot on the left - YMMV

for me, I mostly shoot on the fly and watch simulated exposure and check for a nice histogram using std picture stlye

but if you do landscapes, and find that this flat picture style helps, I might try it for that, please report back

nnowak wrote:

.

Looking at your setup, I am assuming you are going for a look where the product is well lit and the background gets completely blown out to pure white.

I am keeping the camera in this product photography setup at f/11 and 4 seconds at ISO 100. For all photos.

The variables are FL, camera height and distance and how I wave around a LED light.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1465773-REG/yongnuo_yn204_smd_led_video_light.html

I have eliminated other variables so I can put my focus on the light painting.

Can get a nice photo of just about anything that will fit into the box in 4 seconds.

Using an EF-M 18-55mm STM with two 2X ND filters. My money lens.

Sold in a few hours.

MAC wrote:

m100 wrote:

MAC wrote:

m100 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

m100 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

m100 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

m100 wrote:

StrugglingforLight wrote:

I haven't found a definite solution. Since I don't fully understand the histogram behavior with different styles to accurately expose to the right, just exposing to what I feel is the "correct exposure". In raw, I do tend to expose a bit to the right. It would be nice if the camera had zebras function but I don't think it does.

I just keep it in the standard picture style unless I'm shooting raw+jpg, in which case I shoot for the out of camera jpg and not post (raw).

Right ?

You got me studying on it though !

I did find when the camera is connected to my computer using EOS Utility with live view on the computer screen I can see the histogram change when I select different picture styles in the main control panel.

You didn't need to go through the trouble of hooking up the EOS Utility. The in-camera histogram clearly moves with changes to picture style settings, even if the camera is set to RAW only. While harder to see, significant changes to the white balance will also move the histogram.

That is a product photography setup. It stays hooked up until I run out of stuff to sell ?

The camera in the scene is too dark ? Histogram is not much use in this case ?

Were those quesiotions?

Yes. I am questioning everything ?

Wasn't sure since your posts tend to have more question marks than periods.

Looking at your setup, I am assuming you are going for a look where the product is well lit and the background gets completely blown out to pure white. This would give your histogram a huge spike on the right side and another spike somewhere else corresponding to the color and illumination of the object. With your sample above, there is a massive spike on the right corresponding to your background and another big spike near the left side for the black camera. The histogram is far less important than getting a good exposure for the product.

That is a lot different from landscape photography where you are trying to ensure nothing in the scene gets blown out. Shadows can be brought up in post, but blown highlights are gone forever. For landscape photography, a flat picture style would be used and the exposure adjusted to just barely touch the right side of the histogram. The resulting live view/JPEG may look pretty bad, but the RAW file will have the best possible adjustability. Using a high contrast and/or high saturation picture style will make it look like you are hitting the right side of the histogram earlier than reality.

I hear what you are saying.

Late at night the other day this almost made sense to me !

He says he likes it for stills in raw too.

https://prolost.com/blog/2012/4/10/prolost-flat.html

Not for me ? i don't think so ? Not for stills ?

The only thing you have to get used to is that it’s easy to underexpose slightly if you judge exposure by the preview image, as the Prolost Flat preview is brighter in the shadows than most default raw processing.

Thanks, good to know. I find this interesting.

try it and let me know

use the flat settings, except for sharpness, increase those

then expose to give you the best histogram with as little clipping as possible

when I was doing ETTR years ago I discovered that there is about 1 to 2 stops of headroom that can be recovered in the highlights with raw, and because of low dynamic range and noise in the shadows, it was better to clip a bit on the right versus clip a lot on the left - YMMV

for me, I mostly shoot on the fly and watch simulated exposure and check for a nice histogram using std picture stlye

but if you do landscapes, and find that this flat picture style helps, I might try it for that, please report back

I am in over my head on this stuff !

After much testing I guess I see why they call them styles.

https://fstoppers.com/education/finding-your-own-photographic-style-and-why-its-so-important-591442

nnowak wrote:

m100 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

.

Looking at your setup, I am assuming you are going for a look where the product is well lit and the background gets completely blown out to pure white.

I am keeping the camera in this product photography setup at f/11 and 4 seconds at ISO 100. For all photos.

The variables are FL, camera height and distance and how I wave around a LED light.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1465773-REG/yongnuo_yn204_smd_led_video_light.html

I have eliminated other variables so I can put my focus on the light painting.

Can get a nice photo of just about anything that will fit into the box in 4 seconds.

Using an EF-M 18-55mm STM with two 2X ND filters. My money lens.

Sold in a few hours.

Histograms won't help you if you're light painting.

The one technology that would be useful for light painting is something that I think is only available from Olympus/OM cameras. It is called "Live Composite Mode", and it will show you a continually updating live view as your light painting progresses.

Wow ! I did not know that. Sounds super cool !

I am a light painting newbee.

Am making money doing it though. This is important to me.  I got it in my head that my photography stuff should pay for itself.

nnowak wrote:

m100 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

.

Looking at your setup, I am assuming you are going for a look where the product is well lit and the background gets completely blown out to pure white.

I am keeping the camera in this product photography setup at f/11 and 4 seconds at ISO 100. For all photos.

The variables are FL, camera height and distance and how I wave around a LED light.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1465773-REG/yongnuo_yn204_smd_led_video_light.html

I have eliminated other variables so I can put my focus on the light painting.

Can get a nice photo of just about anything that will fit into the box in 4 seconds.

Using an EF-M 18-55mm STM with two 2X ND filters. My money lens.

I bo

Sold in a few hours.

Histograms won't help you if you're light painting.

The one technology that would be useful for light painting is something that I think is only available from Olympus/OM cameras. It is called "Live Composite Mode", and it will show you a continually updating live view as your light painting progresses.

I am shooting JPEG L size with a user defined Auto picture style with contrast and saturation bumped up 1.

The only PP is a quick crop and resize to 1600 x 1600 using Photoshop Elements 11.

Started out with grips on both sides and a viewfinder.

Since I found myself sometimes waving the light around behind the camera I ended up removing both grips and the viewfinder.

The camera is still in a cage though. Don't see any way out of that.

I do want the smallest camera for this.

And I for sure see a difference in downsized to 1600 x 1600 photos between the M100 and the M6II. Sold the M100. M6II is as small and cheap as I can go with my product photography assembly line ? $$$

nnowak wrote:

Using a high contrast and/or high saturation picture style will make it look like you are hitting the right side of the histogram earlier than reality.

Seems so. Using controlled lighting to say shine some red light to make the bowl of apples pop the color histogram is most useful with the color temp set at 5200 and using the neutral picture style while adjusting the red light to make sure you do not use too much red light and over saturate the red apples ?