Very different Histograms-LR3 versus M9

[sandymc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

ETTR may not be all it's cracked up to be. See Ctein's column at The Online Photographer: 'Expose to the Right' is a Bunch of Bull.

 

Some of pointed that out quite a while ago: ChromaSoft: Why "Expose to the Right" is just plain wrong

 

Sandy

[algrove]

My reason for the question was, if you cannot trust the LCD on your camera what is the best way to expose, forgetting ETTR, when looking at the histogram?

 

Even if I expose right down the middle of the histogram on the camera, it results in the LR histogram riding up the right side , sometimes way up the right side of the histogram in LR.

 

Are you guys saying that you expose to the middle only and not the left side of the histogram in order to have the histogram look correct in LR? By correct I mean none of the graphs touching either the left or the right side of the histogram.

Edited November 24, 2011 by algrove

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[sandymc]

For what its worth, in my opinion, people worry too much about histograms - they want a technical way to always get the "best" exposure. Such a beast doesn't exist.

 

Rather visualize the image that you want, and take the photograph to match the visualization. Without adjustments in post.

 

If looking at the histogram helps you visualize the image you'll get, well and good. But don't expose for the perfect histogram, expose for the image you want.

 

Sandy

[mjh]

Some of pointed that out quite a while ago: ChromaSoft: Why "Expose to the Right" is just plain wrong

I’d say the reasoning of both authors is fallacious (although in different ways), but then I think I have argued that point before in one or more of those recurring ETTR threads.

Edited November 24, 2011 by mjh

[algrove]

when I originally asked the question it was not intended for it to be an ETTR thread. I was looking for help on way mu M9 histograms are sooooo different from my LR histograms just after importing into LR. That's all.

[tobey bilek]

ACR in CS5 is the same as LR. Default is Adobe standard color profile. Change your default to Camera standard from Adobe standard with a drop down menue and the image will more closely resemble the camera histogram.

 

I find it helpful to use a MacBeth color checker and balance the third step from white which is a light grey to neutral WB. The rest of the colors fall into place. Now adjust the defaults to give a decent picture of the color checker. Save those as new defaults for that color temperature like daylight. Make presets for cloudy, flash etc using same procedure.

 

Leica camera is difficult to set up compared to my Nikons, but the images sing after you get it right. I suspect that is why people love the B&W but don`t rave of the color. They don`t take the time to set things up properly.

 

Also look at the WhiBal card sold by Rawworkflow.com and B&H. Put that in a sample image and wb off that and transfer the settings to all the images taken at same time and place. I also use it to make a custom wb which the camera saves. Well worth the $30.

 

OH yes, IMHO ETTR is a flawed concept. I would have a bit of noise in the shadows B/4 blown highlights. Unless you can consistently thread that needle every time and never blow anything.

Edited December 21, 2011 by tobey bilek

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks Tobey. You are way over my head, but I will get there over time. I have the WhiteBal card you mention so that part is set. Do you mean to shoot the WB card every time out so as to establish a floor setting during each shoot? Sorry if this is totally stupid.

[MindsEye]

Joel- In your #3 Item in your post, how you suggest one ETTR when out in the field and one only has the camera screen to go by for the histogram?

 

Keeping in mind the inherent inaccuracy of in-camera histograms, you can use it as a rough guideline of sorts, especially if it is "off" in a consistent way. But I would suggest you first learn the bias of your camera's histogram. The bottom line is that most cameras are giving you histogram based on a compressed/jpeg so you'll almost always have more info available in the RAW than what your histogram is showing you.

 

What I've done with some of my cameras is go out to shoot and bring an extra camera to photograph the histogram displayed on my LCD. For a given scene I'll adjust exposure compensation in both directions and photograph the resulting histogram with each incremental change, say half stops. Then when you bring up the RAW image in LR or ACR you can compare the histogram of your RAW image with what the camera showed you. The reason for actually photographing the LCD is that even if you shoot JPEG + RAW the jpeg histogram on your computer can differ from what was on your LCD in the field.

 

As an example I did this with my 5D Mk II and found that when my highlights hug the right side I still have plenty of info in my highlights- at least a full stop if not more. And this is fairly consistent. I should also note that I have a particular custom jpeg setting I've created for getting the best (using this term lightly) possible histogram. Mainly I dial back contrast, saturation, and sharpening in my camera jpeg settings for histogram purposes.

 

All this said, nothing beats placing values purposefully with your exposure meter. If you're familiar with the zone system it's a better method of exposure than ETTR.

 

But I do, sometimes, look at the histogram as a guideline. An example would be if I'm shooting a very high contrast scene, in a hurry and I'm not sure where I'll place specific values. Per the example above, I can keep an eye on the shadow values and keep moving highlight values to the right until my highlights just go off the right edge.

 

All of this is contingent on learning to read the behavior of your specific camera's treatment of histograms with a particular set of jpeg parameters.

 

On a philosophical note, I'm not sure that inclusion of histograms have done us any favors. It is still better to just gain experience with how your exposure meter behaves, and learn to place values for proper exposure.

 

True RAW based in-camera histograms would be far more usefull

[mjh]

True RAW based in-camera histograms would be far more usefull

Unfortunately they wouldn’t be much use at all. You need to apply some kind of basic image processing – including white balance and gamma correction as a bare minimum – before you would get data that could usefully be displayed. And when you have apply some image processing anyway you could just as well process the image in a way that at least roughly corresponds to the way the sensor data will eventually be processed to create a JPEG image. Which brings us back to JPEG-based histograms.

[algrove]

Hey Muizen-here it is for you.