I spot meter, in manual mode, placing the pointer on the +2 (or other) segment of the meter scale
If the brightest part is not truly white, cream for example, I might only use +1
1 Like
You get the same result using the histogram in the camera. I know most DSLR’s don’t have a live histogram but system camera’s have. When adjusting the histogram in your example as is shown in your second image I would get the same result as you have.
I’m not sure about that. A full sensel is a mathematical or physical approach. Full is full. On the dark side there’s is no exact limit. And that is where the best results can be achieved.
I think @John-M is referring to the +2 stop. If that is for most camera’s then the extension of the dynamic range can only be on the other side. In your case about 12 stops to the dark side.
George
The difference is that I don’t have to look at, or play with, the histogram. I just take one spot measure and press the shutter.
What’s more, as I have already said, the histogram shows the JPEG dynamic range, not the full RAW.
What on earth are you talking about? I’m a photographer and don’t even know what a “sensel” is. How do you think I have managed all these years using the same techniques for both film and digital and getting guaranteed perfect exposures for more than 90% of the time.
Once again, I don’t get your point. The D850 sensor has a range off 14.6EV, of which I reserve 3EV for highlights. It’s just simple logic.
Exactly what is shown your screen print.
I think all that discussions of the RAW vs RGB histogram is rubbish. Theoretical during the conversion there is no clipping added. And then most clipping warnings use a threshold, be it in camera or in the editor.
What pixel is for the image, picture element, is sensel for the sensor, sensor element. I thought it was quit common.
You use a correction of +3EV relative to what the meter proposes. If your camera has a dynamic range of 14.6 then there’s another 11.6 left on the dark side.
I don’t say that what you’re doing is wrong, not at all. There’re more roads leading to Rome.
George
Agree completely, in this context only suitable for non-RAW. For RAW, I’ve always used your method (or close variant) to determine the exposure headroom, and it does vary from camera to camera as you say.
I recently switched to a Sony a6700, my first Sony camera in many years. The zebra settings there offer another approach. The zebras can operate in the RAW headroom area (beyond the standard histogram) and can be adjusted to the desired lower limit. The testing method for establishing that lower limit is just as you describe. I use a zebra setting of 107+. This is a bit conservative, but is where my old eyes begin to see loss of detail in a bright textured surface. Mark Galer (see link below) recommends 109+, and demonstrates this simple, fast approach.
Wouldn’t it be nice if cameras could just display the RAW histogram? Someday maybe.
2 Likes