Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Then I'd be the last to tell you to change, Frank

My purpose here is merely to provide options for capture of the best image data quality possible. Preparing for EBTR requires a planned trial of exposing an ERADR series of exposures to determine ERADR at favored ISOs in order to avoid later errors (blown highlights) and achieve the most versatile image file possible.

Dave

Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

Totally understood Dave and at this point I would venture to say my camera has an extra 1 2/3'ds stop

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

That may very well be, but in that case the topic should be titled "The Fallacy of histograms", not "The Fallacy of the "JPEG+Raw" option". The problem stems from exposing for jpegs, not recording JPEG+raw.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Hi, Steve,
I titled this thread as I did because of the unfortunately high number of photographers that are shooting "JPEG+Raw" and believing that they are getting the maximum benefits of both...when they actually are most definitely NOT!

Dave

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Hurrah! My two Sonys each have one and 2/3 stop of ERADR for which I am immensely grateful, and of which I try to take advantage every chance I get! The only difference between us seems to be that I know the ERADR of each at ISO 200 precisely (as well as the ERADR at other ISOs) so I don't have to "venture to say" (which implies, perhaps, some waffling or a bit of uncertainty...which mean an occasional blown highlight?...) It's really no big deal to nail it down.

Dave

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

I feel like I'm close to the point of flogging a dead horse here, but let's be perfectly clear, shooting JPEG+raw is not behavior to be discouraged, so long as you're aware of your camera/histogram/LCD/JPEG limitations. You have encouraged people to abandon the practice of shooting raw+JPEG, telling them it will have a negative effect on their raw imagery, which is not the case. You are abundantly clear on all matters except this.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Hi, Steve,
Didn't mean to kill the horse.

If folks are happy with the raw image data they get from the "JPEG-+Raw" option, so be it. The point is, they ought at least be aware of the difference in image data quality (S:N) between raw data exposed with full available DR and raw image data exposed with only the JPEG allotment of DR (by fitting the single exposure for both within the DR for JPEG - within the JPEG histogram frame)

Merry Christmas,

Dave,

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

That particular camera (Sony A7 II) has a DR of about 13.5 Ev according to DxOMark. A D610 and a D810 have even more DR than the A7 II and all three of them have comparable S/N ratios of about 45 dB at base ISO.

I said in that post, "At EC -3 the red umbrella started to lose saturation and at EC +3 the highlights started to get blown." So that relatively routine outdoor scene the total latitude for error is greater than +/-2 Ev but less than +/-3 Ev.

Even when viewed at 100%, you cannot see any deterioration in the shadows (where the fewest bits are used) from the -2 Ev image #1 to the +2 Ev image #5. There is no extra noise and no loss of color or tonality. Therefore there was no visible detriment to the image by not, "using that extra allotment of raw-accessible DR that the great advantages of capturing raw image data are fully realized."

So far nobody has demonstrated a visible difference or consequence from not fully employing the ETTR/EBTR approach to a normal scene over simply exposing normally.

There may be some benefit in a wide DR scene combined with a camera with a narrow DR, but that has not been demonstrated either.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

You have made that claim many times before but you have never demonstrated it.

If the "image data quality" does not translate into something visible it is only a distinction without a difference.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

Thanks, and merry Christmas to you too!

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

If ETTR/EBTR is so vastly superior to "exposing normally", and putting consumer P&S cameras aside, why would manufacturers of high-end professional cameras not provide a metering mode that would actually meter for optimal RAW ETTR/EBTR and simply shift the JPEG display down a stop or two? This might not work for some scene conditions, but surely 1, 1.5 or even 2 stops of ETTR should, according to theory, provide a vastly superior RAW file without much risk of blown highlights. There is already so much in-camera processing going on that this would be a small mod to the software. And it would, of course, be an optional setting.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

And why can't they make a raw histogram available, even if only as an option?

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

xxxxx
Hi, Scotty,
First, bear in mind that DXO tests a single ...that's only ONE...camera of each model for its published test results. I was surprised at that, but I was so -informed by DXO.

Second, your claim "So far nobody has demonstrated a visible difference or consequence from not fully employing the ETTR/EBTR approach to a normal scene over simply exposing normally" is simply not true.
Have you forgotten that images YOU provided to support that contention were shown, in fact, to demonstrate specifically that very difference (beyond the other images that I have provided)

Depending on the camera the prominent difference will be demonstrated by an definitely discernible increase in shadow detail with, in some those cameras that show increased shadow noise with decreased exposure, a distinct decrease in that noise as well. (see the illustration below taken even with an inordinately high ISO)

If you are preparing prints for the family album or display online at low mag. JPEGs are generally quite satisfactory. But, if your files will be subjected to competent professional lab printing to be viewed under appropriate illumination, exposing raw image data capture in a manner that does not utilize the full available DR is folly.


And you, Scotty, have yet to demonstrate the slightest disadvantage, under ANY circumstances, of assuring maximum use of available DR in exposing raw image data.

I would appreciate, Scotty, if you would not, in your well-known inimical manner, attempt to hijack this thread with your extraneous unrelated pseudo-technical points.

Dave

(Download)

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

A very apt question, John. It has been asked for over a decade. One would think it would be possible, but so far, the camera manufacturers aren't talkin' . It has been suggested that the amount of variation in DR beyond that allotted to JPEG exposure is inimical to individual characterization because it would be an additional per-unit cost they are unwilling to pass on to the consumer and unwilling to absorb in lost profit...but again, the manufacturers are silent on this point. It is, however, impossible to conceive that they are ignorant of the phenomenon. The whole silicon-based semiconductor production industry has been aware of "process variance"/"performance variance" since Shockley (inventor of the transistor in the late 1940s) published on it in 1961.

Some suggest that the variance in sensor function is imaginary. However, any photographer can easily demonstrate his own camera's ERADR. I suspect the reason that no in-camera raw histograms are available is purely economic.

Merry Christmas,

Dave

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

A thread like this one can get into some unexpected areas of complexity. I realize, from a few PMs, that some folks found the discussion to be near their limit of technical understanding. If any have particular questions that they would rather not ask to have cleared up in the thread, don't hesitate to ask me by PM, and I'll do my best to make the matter clear. I have an extensive collection of instructional graphics on the general topic of JPEG and, RAW that I've used in classes, courses, and workshops, and sometimes a particular picture or graphic is, indeed, worth a thousand words from yours truly.

Enjoy your holidays,

Dave