How to get the best raw exposure, part 2

For some reason this constant implication, that science and the "real world" are separate entities needing to be related somehow, is bothering me.

For me, the degree of exposure is Hm lux-seconds and is equal to a constant x average scene luminance x shutter time / (f-number squared).

If my exposure turns out wrong, then one of those three variables was wrong, duh, and most if not all of the verbiage in this thread changes that not a whit ...

... in other words, estimate the light correctly, set the (shutter time / (f-number squared)) correctly and Bob's yer uncle and Fanny's yer aunt.

Everything else, JPEGs, zebras, histograms, metering, EC, na-ni-na, revolves around that simplicity. Which is why I like my always-in-manual Sigma SD9 ...

this is your article

On the same note, a histogram is also not very useful for evaluating the highlights in RAW - while the in-camera histogram for #2640 is dangerously close to the right wall, indicating essentially no headroom (not to mention that the whole frame is one solid "flashing area", indicating overexposure), the RAW has a headroom of slightly more than 1/2 of a stop before highlight clipping; at 1/2 only very few pixels are clipped, see fig. 4.

Respectfully I disagree.

You can:

1. Choose to slow down IF maximising the technical output from your sensor is your PRIMARY goal.
   OR
2. Choose a way of working that speeds you up, whilst understanding the trade-offs.

Sometimes nailing the shot in fluid environments trumps faffing about with various settings to put maximum light on your sensor for each scenario,, which might change in an instant that you cannot or don’t want to predict.

YMMV and that’s fine. But it doesn’t make you right and me wrong.

The one time in this thread where you posted an in-camera histogram and a raw file, it showed the in-camera histogram was quite far from the real raw histogram, particularly, as I remember, in the red channel. I posted the raw histogram and compared the two. If we had threaded view, I could probably find that post.

As I said earlier, I have not tested your camera, but I have tested the a7, a7II, a7R, a7RII, a7RIII, a7RIV, a9, and a9II. The in camera histograms of those are in the same inaccuracy ballpark as Nikon Z cameras and Fuji GFX ones.

Science is about understanding the behavior of the real world.

There is one for the X2D.

My article, and what you are quoting is about a neutral subject only, look at the text and the images above.
Means you need to re-read www.fastrawviewer.com/white-balance-as-per-channel-exposure-correction

And sometimes it’s about understanding the science and balancing that against what works best for your objectives in the real world.

I did test the a6300, and the in-camera histogram worked the same as the other Sony cameras I tested.

Of course. Among other things, that's the difference between science and engineering, although I would not use the word "balancing". The science you use is the science you use. What you do with that knowledge is up to you.

Well, here is from one of raw files Donald posted for everyone to see:

It shows clipping when there is none in raw. Raw highlight inspection tells that there is plenty of details in highlight to work with:

for everyone that missed this post

i dont want to embarris you and actually post that image in FRV. nice job you did to fake the histogram

Stop with that already. Everyone can check the raw file and see you are wrong in your accusation.

And how different are those raw histograms? Scale tricks you?

The last image in that series is of a photo in Phocus preceded by: "But when we turn the clipping warning on, some of the flowers are tinged in purple". Unfortunately, there's no way for the reader to know what the highlight warning indicates because you don't say what threshold setting is being used. The screen shot would be more useful if the highlight / shadow warning tool was included to show what the warning is actually indicating is clipped or if that information was included in your text.

www.lensrentals.com/blog/2023/05/how-to-expose-raw-files-part-2

Yes it does … there’s speed limits 😂 The point is you need to know the science/facts. But again, we are saying the same things, worded differently.

Back to this photography topic. If eeking out maximum performance from your sensor is your PRIMARY objective this thread educates those that want to do it but didn’t know how to.

We've also considered alternative strategy’s for those who want to work fast in dynamic changing lighting where eeking out the maximum IQ from your sensor becomes a SECONDARY objective.

There’s no right or wrong here.