Raw Histogram??

Given you do not profile your monitors and calibrate them only by eye it is reasonable to assume the colours in the images you linked to are more accurate than yours.

If you look through his posts over at dpreview you will see that he also often posted that the camera histograms do not show clipping of raw data accurately.

He often labelled camera histograms a lie but imo that is a bit a bit of a stretch because camera histograms do not claim to represent what happened earlier in the raw data before the jpeg the camera histogram is based on was created.

Commonly, the lightest element is a chromium-plated part on a car.

Don

That isn't the colour of the ladybirds I see in my garden. There are many species and the colours vary. A beetle is not a colour standard.
Don Cox

You are cherry-picking images and cameras that seem to support your belief, and perhaps the conversion style you are using squeezes some extra highlights in and compressing them in the top 2 or 3 percent of the display RGB values, like your bright cloud example, but one black swan, like a saturated red tulip converted to sRGB, brings your theory down, even with cameras with minimal raw headroom.

Yes, some subject matter, some cameras, at some ISOs, with some "picture styles" or conversion styles might show little difference in the headroom in a raw histogram vs a display RGB histogram, but that is not proof that there is never a big difference.

One can make a claim that "working people are paid according to their age, one thousand dollars per year of age", and then find examples for which this is incidentally true, which is probably made easier by the fact that people generally make more money as they age in the workforce, raising the rate of incidence, but the assertion is nonsense. The truth would be that on average, people's earning increase as they age, and sometimes, people are making their age in thousands per year and tracking close to it over a period of years. I probably had some years like that, but more that were not like that. Producing one year-end tax statement for which the claim seems to be true is not proof of the claim.

Not all histograms are useful. The one you posted tells nothing.

Accuracy for what? The histogram of a converted image is "spot on" for the converted image, but not "spot on" for determining how much more exposure you may have been able to use at that ISO setting in a raw capture. Would you prefer to shoot at ISO 40 on a camera that only goes down to "ISO 100"? You may be able to, but the histogram of a default converted image will never tell you if you can do it safely.

I think this is the part Donald is missing: raw data and converted image are different objects, and what do they say about apples and oranges?

They say that apples and oranges are both good for you.

Love the answer. spot on. 😎

Have you not been looking at my test images for the last 6 weeks ?

So off-topic and irrelevant.

You have a wrong idea what tests are. What you are doing is un-systematic, partial, and ignores any comments you are offered. I have no idea why you are spending your time on that.

Do you think i screwed these images up ? because i didnt even know what a raw histogram was at the time ?

I don't offer opinions on images taken by other people.
Not to mention it's off-topic.
If you want to take better images, try to understand the difference between raw and processed.

You have yet to post an image in which the camera's displayed three-color histograms matched the four-channel RD raw histograms.

It depends on where you place the threshold for "screwing up".

If you are happy with your images all well and good but you seem to be struggling with the fact that people have shown how image quality can be improved beyond what you are prepared to accept.

People have also shown how your approach to "testing" and the conclusions you draw from it are flawed.