There are blown pixels in that bright specular line near the horizon, but the clouds are not blown. Note the histogram below has logarithmic scale on Y-axis. So there's just a few hundred pixels blown. I don't know whether it's satisfactory or not and where exactly the zerbas were flashing when you were shooting.
May 9, 2023
810
-
-
-
It can be a good approximation but unfortunately this headroom is not constant , it may depend on the white balance and scene light/contrast. Generally, if in-camera blinkies or RGB histogram don't clip, you don't get clipping in raw either, so you're in the safe zone, but at a cost of underexposing against an 'ideal' ETTR exposure.
Things get a bit more complicated if you're fine with blowing some unimportant highlights. -
Yes that is true but in my experience the variation is not significant and especially in good light the benefit of eking out that extra exposure* above the "safe limit" (1/2 stop in my case) is not worth the risk of clipping important highlights.
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
** optimal exposure - the maximum exposure* within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.
*** under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlights. -
Thanks for posting the raw digger. i just cant get my head around to use it properly. my zebras were just a very fine line following the magenta line in the image i posted from Fast Raw Viewer.
-
Well if the zebras on the camera showed the same fine line on the horizon as shown on the FRV ( the FRV had + 0.67 added to the histogram ) than your cameras zebras are off by at least 0.67
-
it had nothing added
-
Sure you did to show the clipping in FRV as you have shown you needed to add +0.67
This can be confirmed with the Exposure stats -
i dont understand what your refering to. its a strait raw image thats it. i have no idea where you got .67 from
-
Here is what you posted
Working back I see that you have added +0.67 to get to the same stats
Heck you can manipulate data to your hearts content
-
I havnt done anything post the screen grab i posted.
-
i think you need to learn to drive the software 😁 and i thought i was bad.
-
what?
-
heh expat how do you post images bigger than what mine are on screen
-
You said
People are entitled to interpret your meaning as they see it 😄
Since you are still reading my posts then clearly you are also agreeing with the definition of exposure* I post otherwise you wouldn't be reading my posts as you are, even with this one 🤣🤣😎
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
** optimal exposure - the maximum exposure* within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.
*** under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlights. -
I had this discussion at length with 'Alfn' on DPReview. He doesn't have the understanding to work out which definitions are equivalent and why. It seems to be a case of rote learning only, which has never provided understanding.
-
What are you waffling on about?
He isn't questioning what you might have done post screenshot.
He is telling you what you did pre-screenshot, and how, to create an image to push your agenda.
-
That is just the exif that could have come from any image. So what.
Ian has red circled an 0.67EV in the screenshot you posted.
He is questioning what caused that 0.67EV?
