How to get the best raw exposure, part 2

Bob, your writing, although carrying the scent of precision, is quite confusing for me. You keep mixing up points in the same paragraph. I find myself torn in multiple directions at the same time. I can't quite shake of this feeling I'm being toyed with. As you seem to think my concepts are wrong, please make this simple for me:

Start with an empty post and write down a numbered list of the conceptual errors you think I have (errors that make a practical difference to bringing home the photo). Don't quibble, stick to material things like "if you do that your photos will have 200% more noise that if you do this".

My real concern is not entertaining myself on a discussion forum, but reassuring myself I have an acceptable exposure strategy for field work. There is a lot of flexibility because many differences are small and just get lost in the general mishmash of incompetence. I'm focused on material errors, not minutiae, I'm not bothered with being 1/3rd of a stop imprecise with my settings but it would be nice to be sure I'm heading in the right direction. Within a stop or two would be good 😁

There is no WYSIWYG in a EVF when you are shooting raw. None.
If you insist on using zebras If you insist on using zebras @109+, switch to bw to make them more accurate :)

I feel a poll coming on so that "we" can vote on that ...

The word "effectively" is important here. What I mean is that if ISO was like swapping in a faster film, the meter would reflect this by changing shutter and aperture settings for correct exposure at the higher ISO. But because ISO doesn't actually change the sensitivity of the sensor, but does tell the meter to change the shutter/aperture, the net result is effective underexposure.

If you're talking about the gamma curves that must be applied to get you to a color space like Adobe RGB, they don't affect the brightness of the values near clipping, since they are compensated for before the image is printed or displayed.

If that makes you feel better sure. Will the question be aimed at theory on a tripod or for jobbing/wedding and the like? The latter are largely not on forums like this.

I think what you are doing is OK.

Here is someone who didn't read carefully what I am recommending. I did mention the limits of what pushes in posts should be contemplated.

Phew, thank you. Second guessing myself so much, my head is rotating!

Some want knowledge and understanding of the issues so that they can apply it in fieldwork when they see fit.

I'm wondering why that was said. While that is true for the same scene lighting, f-stop and shutter speed, it does not account for most cameras which change f-stop and/or shutter speed according to the ISO setting. Therefore, ISO affects the exposure by which I mean lx.s at the sensor.

Here's one:

I have no idea of what the crux of this para is or how it relates to my previous one sentence. It's a melange of thoughts and ideas that seem to have little direct relevance to the text you responded to.

Without attribution. Don't do that again, please.

Really? I've been providing real world settings and asking how they might be improved. I've yet to receive an answer, just some cherry picked replies that ALWAYS revert to the theory.

Alas that's where we are at. Bob you are to be commended for allowing these threads to go on, but your personal bias towards tech answers vs practical suggestions still comes across loud and clear.

To you, anyone asking a question or challenging these threads is "talking down", whereas those continuing to prove their tech prowess are never "talking down". They are Gods who can do no wrong.

It's no wonder its an ageing demographic on places like this!!

Thanks.

When choosing an exposure and if I have time I am guessing how I might use the data in the image to create an image for display. I have greater dynamic range in the camera than in the eventual display.

I usually use JPEG and sRGB because it works on nearly every display. I can in post processing compress a larger dynamic range so that it will fit into the JPEG and display on a device that knows sRGB. I do not see how any histogram available to me in the camera would help me get a better photo of the bird before it moves. For a landscape that is not moving, then I can take time to try various exposures.

If the end of the curve near darkest pixel values or brightest pixel values is compressed or stretched, it seems to me that there would be loss of information when it is quantized for display. Integer to float and back to integer.

If I put a greater dynamic range into the JPEG for display on a device, I have changed the scene that I remember seeing in a way that is sometimes pleasing to me and sometimes not.

If I photograph a Northern Cardinal in bright sunlight, I might need EV -2/3 to get detail of the feathers even if I increase the dynamic range in post processing. Yet, such a small number of pixels will have those very large red numbers that it will be hard to see in the histogram.

Thanks again.

True, but not the ones we were talking about.

There are lots of ways to apply the theory. Some of then are a bit slower. Some are not.