> > About 'RAW histogram': > > Not AFAIK but so called 'Pro cameras' may do so. > I highly doubt about it though: if WB influences histogram (and it > does) there's no way to do a really useful 'RAW histogram' because > even if it was available, the resulting histogram following a WB > change would not be the same as the so-called 'RAW histogram'. > > So in the end, there's no point in a 'RAW histogram', unfortunately > and when possible, WB choice prior to the shoot is and will always be > better. Otherwise there would not be so many (expensive) accessories > for managing the WB. > > -- > Thibault Massart aka Thibouille
I don't really understand the point you are making in the second paragraph, and it doesn't feel right to me. But in any case I think you're probably wrong in the first paragraph. All sorts of factors affect the 'raw' histogram, not just white balance - it's clear to see this when you use something like Lightroom on raw files - but that does not mean that it would be no use in the camera. I have 2 so-called pro cameras and as far as I know neither of them bases the histogram on the raw files. As an aid to exposure a histogram based on the raw data should, if my understanding is correct, be more accurate than one based on a jpeg. However, my guess is that the accuracy of the output is limited by the resolution of the display on the back of the camera, which is much smaller than is likely to be available on your computer. So although the camera could easily calculate the histogram from the many megapixels of raw data available to it, it would then have to start removing accuracy to be able to display it, so it needs a set of rules to decide how to reduce the accuracy of the output. Perhaps using a jpeg conversion is that set of rules. This is purely guesswork, but it seems to make some kind of sense to me. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
