anotherview wrote:
I disagree with your contrarian view. Your comment only contradicts. It does not explain the role of the Histogram in reaching a correct exposure.
There is no role.
It merely records tones within the field of view. I cannot and does not tell you about proper exposure.
IT CAN tell you if there are tones that your camera cannot record (blown highlights or blocked shadows) but that's independent of "proper exposure" (i.e. if the dog and field are exposed properly)
Quote:
You might explain your view by discussing the purpose of the Histogram and telling how the Histogram does function without any connection to obtaining a correct exposure.
Just did.
Quote:
For example, the Histogram can indicate both overexposure and underexposure. It acts as a visual aid in this way for determining a correct exposure.
Actually not. It cannot indicate under, over, or proper exposure.
IT CAN indicate tones that are beyond the camera's ability to record in a given scene.
That's not the same as " underexposure, overexposure, or proper exposure"
You can USE it in that way and get something that's pretty close or good enough or right on the money, but that's not what we are talking about.
Example:
1.) You frame the shot so that the dog is exactly 50% of the light tones in the field of view, the grass is the other 50%.
The histo shows a lump in the middle.2.) You reframe to make the dog's light tones 90% of the frame.
The histo is all bunched up at the top end of the scale.3.) You back up and only the dogs hind leg is in the shot...about 10% of the area of the field of view.
The histo reacts by lumping all of the date to the low end of the histo.Have you learned anything about what the amount of light falling on the grass and dog are?
You have 3 different histos...is the exposure different in all 3 of them?
Nope.
You've learned nothing about the proper exposure. You've ONLY learned about what the tonal distribution in each field of view is.