Raw Histogram??

i prefer Fast raw viewer. RD makes no sense to me at all. when i tune a guitar i use a simple guitar tuner . couldnt care less about harmonics or if the bridge is placed in the utimate position. thats why i buy good quality gear .let the manufacturer worry about that. its why i own an a74.

It doesn't matter if you understand raw digger or not. It is irrelevant.

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

It really is that simple :-)

Why wouldn't a developing software program like DXO Photolab use the the imbedded JPEG to generate a histogram?

when you plug 1 hole another one apears. im letting this ship sink, its just a word merry-go-round now. with no content.

But you haven't plugged any holes that people have highlighted in your testing or conclusions from it.

The good ship DonaldB is sinking fast ;-)

In the cases where you've posted raw file links and the images of the back of the screen, I have loaded the images into RawDigger, and determined that the histograms don't match.

Then it wouldn't represent the histogram of the developed image. And what would be the point?

FastRawViewer, same story, no match.

The developing software program histogram is for the review image which is basically the raw data converted by the program, not the camera, and shown on your screen. The embedded JPEG is not the same as the program's JPEG and can easily have a different histogram, albeit similar.

Some image Viewers do extract the embedded JPEG for their review image instead of converting the raw ... FastStone Viewer can be set to go either way.

Guitar tuning and intonation is far more complex than raw data. The bridge needs to be in the right place for each string if you want the 5th fret to be tuned at the same time as the 17th fret, and even if you get those two pitches exactly an octave apart, frets far from 5 and 17 may be a tad off, and the first fret can be very sharp if the nut is high, and open strings are often a little bit flat with traditional nuts and their placement, too, from having such a different way of defining the end point of the string (sitting in a slot vs pressed and curved against a fret).

IOW, you would need to be able to adjust the position of every fret for every string independently, to perfectly intonate a guitar for all notes. People must accept the futility, and just find an approach to minimize the biggest errors based on what parts of the neck they play on the most. Raw data is linear until it is not; either at clipping, or at base ISO in the highest highlights with a fraction of cameras.

exactly, thats why i bought my daughter an australian hand made Pratley guitar made from Tasmainian blackwood. amazing peice of kit.
but thats only a fraction of the gear needed to play live gigs and record your own music 😁99% of musos wouldnt know how to stereo record an acoustic guitar to save there life. let alone know how to use the extremely complex recording studio software. 😎and photographers think the are geniuses.

If it's a developed image and no longer RAW it is not from the RAW data but from the now bitmapped image. Is it not?

As a change from the gold-standard "a74", here's an example from a DP2

Raw:

TIFF:

Thanks to Iliah, Alex & Co for being able to post this useless information.

it might come in handy for blind photographers when they cant see the preview image on the camera and read out the numbers 😎😄Hey im patenting that concept
i will make millions 😆

... and yet ... dprevived.com/t/raw-histogram/3530/post/42096/ ...

Like the WW II General, you have returned ...

LOL ... which part of "useless information" were you not able to read?

There seems to be an assumption here that all "real world working photographers" have roughly the same working conditions, and that those working conditions are those that you encounter.

It’s very important if you shoot RAW.
If you shoot JPEG, then only the JPEG histogram matters.

The “top” or “bucket full” histogram point is telling you that you have hit “solid white,” which you cannot recover. That is, you cannot darken these blown-out regions of the photo. I shoot RAW, and I want to know if I have exposed my highlights into a non-recoverable state. Depending on how I edit the image in the RAW editor, the highlights can remain blown or not, but any portions of the image which are “bucket full” will be blown out and there’s no way to correct it.