Histogram, who uses it?

I use it to check basic exposure buts it just to see how the shot came out. Done is done so if I cant fix in post I will retake the shot if I can....

davidc502 wrote in post #14562415
Maybe I'm not using the correct terminology. If so I apologize. What I'm trying to relay is even though I manually shot this recital at -2EV (most of the time/as best I could), the histogram showed <- FAR LEFT Corner. When I manually brought the histogram to the right, maybe 2/3rds right, the shot appeared way over-exposed.

Even though I shot -2EV I still had to do highlight correction on them. Yes, that isn't lost/blown data, as it looked like the correction did what it was supposed to. You are correct.

This particular recital had exceptionally poor lighting as it was a public middle school. Dancers in the back had very little lighting and dancers in the front were nice and bright.... talk about an exposure nightmare depending on the subject.
I'm at work now, but will try to post some examples tonight. I think I've already deleted the over-exposed shots, but I still have photos I haven't corrected yet. Hopefully I'll be able to show where those are on the histogram.

Your -2EV exposure suggests small white dance costumes against a dark background...But the histogram isn't tied to the camera's meter and should catch the overexposure...Are you sure there weren't a few bins smashed up against the right side of the histogram?...Sometimes it is hard to tell.

rrblint wrote in post #14562536
Your -2EV exposure suggests small white dance costumes against a dark background...But the histogram isn't tied to the camera's meter and should catch the overexposure...Are you sure there weren't a few bins smashed up against the right side of the histogram?...Sometimes it is hard to tell.

It is definitely hard to tell, good call.

Even more difficult when using this view, which I like to use periodically.

(taken from Imaging Resource: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E1D​MK4/E1DMK4A3.HTM)

rrblint wrote in post #14562536
Your -2EV exposure suggests small white dance costumes against a dark background...But the histogram isn't tied to the camera's meter and should catch the overexposure...Are you sure there weren't a few bins smashed up against the right side of the histogram?...Sometimes it is hard to tell.

This remains a major complaint about the histogram implementation - the height of the bar at the edge is hard to see and it can sometimes be quite tall. That's why the blinkies are a useful adjunct to the histogram - to know when some parts of the image are blown.

rrblint wrote in post #14562536
Your -2EV exposure suggests small white dance costumes against a dark background...But the histogram isn't tied to the camera's meter and should catch the overexposure...Are you sure there weren't a few bins smashed up against the right side of the histogram?...Sometimes it is hard to tell.

Correct -- Yes, I had a few "bins" smashed up against the right side too from what I remember. So maybe it ended up working out correctly then?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #14562284
The problem is that the exposure needle is tied to your metering mode, and unless you want to adjust 4 factors each time in manual mode to just use the needle to figure out your exposure, it is better to use the histogram. Also, you know what you want properly exposed, the camera doesn't even if you were to use the correct metering mode to drive the exposure gauge. Finally, only a few models actually tie the metering mode to the AF point selected, thus making it even harder with models that don't do this.

This is why Canon has activated a histogram in Liveview so you can actually tweak settings before the shot while observing the effects on the histogram.

Yes, but that is basically what I said. The needle does not work unless we have super cameras with way more dynamic range so there are safety margins on both sides.

But our cameras do not have a huge dynamic range, and no shoulders that compresses the last stops, so we need instead to optimize the limited range using the histogram, in combination with the blinking warnings on the display to know if it's just the sun that is represented all to the right on the histogram or if there are more important features also reaching the clipping limit.

In the end, the histogram and the highlight blinks are some of the absolutely most important tools we have on the camera.

For you folks who depend solely on the review screen, keep in mind that the brightness of your screen and the ambient light when you view your screen can affect your impression of correct exposure. The histogram takes that out of the equation. As an old film shooter who had a rocky transition to digital it wasnt until I began to understand the histogram that I fully embraced digital.

davidc502 wrote in post #14562579
Correct -- Yes, I had a few "bins" smashed up against the right side too from what I remember. So maybe it ended up working out correctly then?

It certainly sounds that way, if you have bins up against the right edge, odds are very good you have clipped data, and blinkies would have shown up, if you had that turned on. I typically don't turn that on, but after reviewing the comments, I believe I will start to use that option in conjunction with the histograms, it certainly makes alot of sense to do so.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #14562614
It certainly sounds that way, if you have bins up against the right edge, odds are very good you have clipped data, and blinkies would have shown up, if you had that turned on. I typically don't turn that on, but after reviewing the comments, I believe I will start to use that option in conjunction with the histograms, it certainly makes alot of sense to do so.

I appreciate your comments and the participation you do here. I usually walk away learning something new when you're involved with the thread, and for that I thank you.

David

jonneymendoza wrote in post #14562417
on point 2, there are some shots u simply cannot retake again. infact unless your taking a landscape static scene, most cases you dont have a chance to retake that killer shot again.

Dynamic histogram would be far more useful for some as you can pre configure your settings in a scene before pressing that shutter button

While you can't repeat the shot with the main person stumbling down the stairs, you can make test shots setting up the exposure while you wait for the subject to come out the door. It is only if the main subject is dressed in all white and there are zero other objects even close to white for the test shot that you have to take a wild guess while waiting.

In the same way, the exposure setting in the camera can be changed as time passes based on light readings from a fixed object. So when something unexpected happens, you already have the camera at an almost perfect exposure setting. If the exposure is good for a white car passing on lap 13, it's probably also a good exposure setting for the crash at lap 14. Or if (while the car is away) the general light level drops 1 stop, it's likely that such an adjustment (based on metering on fixed objects around you) will still end up with photos where the histogram will show a good use of the available dynamic range.

If something happens unexpectedly so you can't retake the photo, then you may not have the time to adjust your exposure setting. So time for Av or Tv with pre-configured exposure compensation to have the camera measure instantly. Or optimize the histogram beforehand and then regularly adjust the exposure based on general light levels. But still with lots of use of a chimped histogram after taking a picture. After all - taking test photos doesn't kill us economically and we aren't likely to run out of film just before that special event.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #14562614
It certainly sounds that way, if you have bins up against the right edge, odds are very good you have clipped data, and blinkies would have shown up, if you had that turned on. I typically don't turn that on, but after reviewing the comments, I believe I will start to use that option in conjunction with the histograms, it certainly makes alot of sense to do so.

The blinkies are invaluable too - scenes that includes the sun, LEDs or stronger lamps must always clip because of the huge intensity of the light sources. The blinking parts will then tell that it's just the lamp that is clipped but not the structured lamp shade.

It's too hard to figure out from the histogram exactly how much of the scene that is clipping.

Use mine all the time to verify I have an exposure I will be happy with. The LCD is very hard to tell that on alone, so the histogram is very useful. Along with the blinkie detector!

davidc502 wrote in post #14562638
I appreciate your comments and the participation you do here. I usually walk away learning something new when you're involved with the thread, and for that I thank you.

David

+1 to that!!

And it seems that your intuition served you very well in this case davidc502..good work!

Thanks to AJSJones, gonzogolf, and pwm2 as well...The "blinkies" tell what is is overexposed...If it is something that should be overexposed then clipped highlights are ok, if not then exposure correction is called for...I will remember that.

TeamSpeed is one whose posts I always read...Always insightful...never insulting.

For me it is similar to wafeform monitor in the broadcast world.
Only techincians using it to check if signal (picture) is withing the spec.
I used it about eighting years ago just to learn. Still, if I need to examine the picture I use picture.
Same for histogram. Yes, it shows if picture is under or over exposed. But even on 5Dc you could see the picture and make conclusion right away about exposure and even focus.

umphotography wrote in post #14562182
Sometimes the truth is hard to hear. A Histogram is your tool to get proper exposure. Its like a bubble on a level. You would not want to live in a crooked building would you? You would not want your food to slide off the table when you sit down to eat because its crooked would you ??

Same principal for the histogram and you are foolish if you try to to do something ( taking properly exposed photos) w/o the proper tools to do the job or a basic understanding of what that tool (the histogram) is trying to tell you. Knowledge is power. Knowing what your histogram is telling you makes you a smarter better educated photographer. Kind of like learning your ABC's before you start to read. Thats how basic a histogram is to digital photography.

So if your taking pictures and not understanding why and how your camera works and not understanding what the tools are telling you as to how to get a proper exposure....what else do you call it ?

Maybe uninformed would be a better word.....can we all get back to playing no score soccer so no one will get their feelings or self esteem trampled on,,,,,,,,,,,puuullleeee​se

There is NO set way a histogram should look, firstly, so you're wrong in that respect. As for not hurting feelings, there's a way to talk to people and there's a way NOT to talk to people. Generally, calling someone a fool falls in the latter category. It shows malice behind your words and what has anyone done to you to deserve it? A histogram should be used to gauge exposure, that's it. There is no perfect histogram because depending on what you want your photo to look like, the histogram will reflect different things. If you're wanting a darker photo, it will be clumped to the left. If it's high key, it will clumped to the right. You have every right to make your point, but calling people fools isn't really necessary.