pfogle
Well-known
I originally posted this on an EOS forum, but then I realised it applies here as well...
I've seen some discussion here about how it's irrelevant how you have the parameters set when shooting RAW, since the parameters are for the in-camera jpg conversion, and are just default settings for RAW converters.
However, it occured to me that, to get the histogram to most accurately show the exposure, you should set all settings to minimum, especially contrast. That way, highlights that are ok on the RAW file won't show as blown out in the histogram, which uses the parameter settings for its display.
just a thought... I tried it and it works well on the 1Dm2
Phil
I've seen some discussion here about how it's irrelevant how you have the parameters set when shooting RAW, since the parameters are for the in-camera jpg conversion, and are just default settings for RAW converters.
However, it occured to me that, to get the histogram to most accurately show the exposure, you should set all settings to minimum, especially contrast. That way, highlights that are ok on the RAW file won't show as blown out in the histogram, which uses the parameter settings for its display.
just a thought... I tried it and it works well on the 1Dm2
Phil
Ed Schwartzreic
Well-known
Phil,
This makes alot of sense to me. Several times my histograms showed over exposure in the highlights, but this was not present on looking at the raw files in RSE (my preferential converter, to-date). I think your post explains why. I'll need to experiment a little when I get time this weekend.
Ed
This makes alot of sense to me. Several times my histograms showed over exposure in the highlights, but this was not present on looking at the raw files in RSE (my preferential converter, to-date). I think your post explains why. I'll need to experiment a little when I get time this weekend.
Ed