why no "blown pixel count" in (raw) viewfinder? Instead of histogram?

[Kaj E]

Maybe many of us don't really need a full exposure histogram in our viewfinders. For example would prefer an option to just show me 3 numbers in the corner of the viewfinder, simply describing the percentage of blown-out red, green and blue pixels at the current exposure setting. See http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52447035

I would prefer a true RAW histogram on a EV or L* -axis, with "blinkies" for any blown RAW channel. I would not like to have it in the viewfinder, but the LCD.

I shoot with a DSLR.

--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member #13
It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby.- Elliott Erwitt

 

[RussellInCincinnati]

Kaj E wrote: Russell, I agree with you that shooting color patches for camera calibration is most useful in studio conditions.

And even then only in certain studio conditions. Those studio conditions probably include (1) important need to please a client's priority to exactly match a commercial product or commercial makeup color and (2) only one color of "all" light sources on those above-mentioned areas that have to matchy-matchy. For example my clients that are not selling a physical product, are more interested in pleasing color in delivered images, than "accurate" color. And it is not my experience, and it sounds like not yours, that color patches have ever contributed noticeably to merely "pleasing" color.

Even there if your camera has color adjustment possibilities or if it happens to be right out of the box in a "neutral" profile I have not really found shooting color patches important. A calibrated monitor and normal color vision is essential to getting things "right" for typical photographic reasons.

And one more thing, am also still a bit psychologically attached to my little $15 dollar WhiBal card. Rarely photograph it, just use for 5 seconds or so it to set a custom white balance in-camera for every single lighting situation.

 

[RussellInCincinnati]

Kaj E wrote: I would prefer a true RAW histogram on a EV or L* -axis, with "blinkies" for any blown RAW channel. I would not like to have it in the viewfinder, but the LCD. I shoot with a DSLR.

So you want both a "true Raw" histogram, and blinkies. With an option to only have these feature clutter the LCD rather than also show up in an electronic eye-level viewfinder. Yes that would be great.

Then it would only be a quick head movement to check out the exposure (which doesn't vary as often as scenes do anyway). Without continuously having to stare at unneeded viewfinder markings.

 

[Kaj E]

Kaj E wrote: I would prefer a true RAW histogram on a EV or L* -axis, with "blinkies" for any blown RAW channel. I would not like to have it in the viewfinder, but the LCD. I shoot with a DSLR.

So you want both a "true Raw" histogram, and blinkies. With an option to only have these feature clutter the LCD rather than also show up in an electronic eye-level viewfinder. Yes that would be great.

I think the blinkies would be nice because I want to avoid blowing essential highlights. The blinnkies would tell me where the overexposure is. Blowing specular highlights in for instance strong reflections of the sun is OK.

Then it would only be a quick head movement to check out the exposure (which doesn't vary as often as scenes do anyway). Without continuously having to stare at unneeded viewfinder markings.

 

[UnderDriven]

Maybe many of us don't really need a full exposure histogram in our viewfinders.

You can also argue for a "shoot-to-the-right" mode in which the camera automatically determines the maximum exposure without any clipping. The camera might have to take a few 'test' shots to determine the proper exposure value, but for landscapes or still life shots it wouldn't matter. Then you wouldn't need any exposure information at all in your viewfinder...

 

[RussellInCincinnati]

RussellInCincinnati wrote: Maybe many of us don't really need a full exposure histogram in our viewfinders.

UnderDriven wrote: You can also argue for a "shoot-to-the-right" mode in which the camera automatically determines the maximum exposure without any clipping.

Yes, perhaps with even the simple luxury of telling the camera 3 other "maximum numbers". Those 3 limits would tell the camera to always increase exposure to just below where the number of blown-high raw red, green or blue pixels exceed any of their maximums.

You know auto-shoot-to-the-right is so easy to do, that it is now annoying to me that every camera producing raw files doesn't have an option to do so. A useful bare minimum option would be to auto-set exposure, to where just 100 total pixels of all colors are blown high.

What a simplification for some of us, compared to all the fancy center-weighted or other weirdly-weighted guesstimate algorithms as to what exposure we want, when after all the demanding user has asked for a raw file.

 

[Kendall Helmstetter Gelner]

Maybe many of us don't really need a full exposure histogram in our viewfinders.

You can also argue for a "shoot-to-the-right" mode in which the camera automatically determines the maximum exposure without any clipping. The camera might have to take a few 'test' shots to determine the proper exposure value, but for landscapes or still life shots it wouldn't matter. Then you wouldn't need any exposure information at all in your viewfinder...

Here's the problem though - the histogram itself is really based on the JPG from the camera, not the raw file. So all you'd be doing is making the JPG look as good as possible, while not properly exposing for the RAW potential from your given camera.

And that is why it's not automated, because you learn over time just how much over the JPG (or not) you can go in RAW and still recover highlights. The camera (and you) does not have the time to take several raw images and figure out what the exactly right exposure is. The cameras to a large extent already prevent you in automatic modes from much overexposure.

To answer the original question, it's often more useful to know how close you are to going over than if you are over - again because you understand from experience what the data will look like after it comes out of the raw processor. It's much less useful to get a simple number of pixels that have gone "over the wall".

 

[RussellInCincinnati]

RussellInCincinnati wrote: Maybe many of us don't really need a full exposure histogram in our viewfinders.

UnderDriven wrote: You can also argue for a "shoot-to-the-right" mode in which the camera automatically determines the maximum exposure without any clipping. The camera might have to take a few 'test' shots to determine the proper exposure value, but for landscapes or still life shots it wouldn't matter. Then you wouldn't need any exposure information at all in your viewfinder...

Kendall Helmstetter Gelner wrote: Here's the problem though - the histogram itself is really based on the JPG from the camera, not the raw file.

Yes that is indeed a problem...for example this entire thread is about RAW pixels Kendall...for goodness' sakes the THREAD TITLE has the word "raw" in it. Sure my Sony Nex C3 histogram is showing jpeg pixel brightnesses, which of course is not useful to raw photographers.

So all you'd be doing is making the JPG look as good as possible, while not properly exposing for the RAW potential from your given camera.

No, the suggestion and discussion in this thread is about the utility of (and annoyance that we don't have) a live viewfinder counter of blown-high RAW pixels, as pretty clearly implied in the thread title: "why no "blown pixel count" in (raw) viewfinder?"

And that is why it's not automated, because you learn over time just how much over the JPG (or not) you can go in RAW and still recover highlights.

Cannot make sense of what you are saying here. You're saying that we can guess the number of raw blown pixels so well from looking at JPEG histograms, that we don't need a counter of blown-high raw pixels?

The camera (and you) does not have the time to take several raw images and figure out what the exactly right exposure is.

Agreed. And the thread title was not "why don't cameras figure out in real time the exactly right exposure." The question is why can't we get an absurdly-simple-to-compile live counter of the number of pixels in the current image that are at 100% (i.e. or 255 or 4095 or whatever) of max brightness.

The cameras to a large extent already prevent you in automatic modes from much overexposure.

Guess the thread title should have been "why no blown pixel count in (raw) viewfinder for raw users that are not using autoexposure modes?" Had not thought this needing nailing down.

To answer the original question, it's often more useful to know how close you are to going over than if you are over

Not to me. As an experienced raw photographer, all I ever want to know about my exposure setting is: where does the number of blown pixels jump up off of zero, as I increase my manual exposure?

[ATTACH alt="The only question am EVER having about my camera's raw exposure setting is: "how much exposure can this sensor use, without losing any highlight detail?" What the heck else would a raw photographer want to know?"]451168[/ATTACH]
The only question am EVER having about my camera's raw exposure setting is: "how much exposure can this sensor use, without losing any highlight detail?" What the heck else would a raw photographer want to know?

- again because you understand from experience what the data will look like after it comes out of the raw processor.

Not a good argument, the question is how much could a piece of auto-computed viewfinder information help those of us who don't have the skill or time or luck or inclination to guess how many raw pixels will be blown high.

It's much less useful to get a simple number of pixels that have gone "over the wall".

For photographer like me, who values preserved highlight detail far more than preserved shadow detail, what exactly are the advantages of knowing anything about your raw exposure settings, besides knowing at what exposure level you lose X number of blown-high pixels? In the above picture, the exposure was set to exactly the max brightness the sensor could tolerate with zero blown-high pixels. Why would a raw photographer who prioritizes highlight detail over shadows (a pretty big chunk of raw users) ever want to increase noise and lose shadow detail by exposing less than that?

Well in the case when there's not enough light for a reasonable shutter speed/aperture one supposes. But in that case you're going to set the cam to the widest reasonable aperture and/or slowest exposure you can tolerate, no matter what further tragic underexposure details the viewfinder might impart to you anyway.

Yes one can imagine some raw photographers (I pity them) who most often, in most situations, value shadow detail over highlight detail. To please that crowd, would offer that cameras should also have an optional counter of how many lost-low raw pixels there are, to complement my proposed blown-high raw pixel counter in the viewfinder. Those 2 raw pixel counts would be a ton easier to provide in a live viewfinder that the fully drawn JPEG histogram that currently clogs a raw-photographer's viewfinder (if they're lucky).