CHANGE.ORG request to camera manufacturers for RAW histograms

Hi all, if you think having RAW histograms on your camera could be a good idea (just like Magic Lantern achieves on some Canons), think of signing and spreading this request among your photographic contacts, other forums, social networks or any place related to photography:

https://www.change.org …rters&utm_mediu​m=copyLink

I signed this.

Pekka wrote in post #18612772
I signed this.

Thanks Pekka!
Anyone else wants to have a RAW histogram? no more guessing, what it's blown on the camera it's blown on the RAW file, and what it isn't in the camera isn't in the RAW file at home.

Regards

I just signed. Good idea

.


I signed it, but it seemed to not be satisfied with my signature.

It tried to get me to give money to the site and then it tried to get me to share it on Facebook. . It was confusing because it made me think that maybe my signature doesn't actually get recorded unless I give them money or share via Facebook. . It would be nice to have some sort of confirmation that it recorded my signature even though I declined to do anything more.


.
.

I signed. It appears that I did so with no problems.
I refused to contribute the $3,
and declined to login to facebook to verify my existence.
Nonetheless, it appears my signature was recorded.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18628603
.


I signed it, but it seemed to not be satisfied with my signature.

It tried to get me to give money to the site and then it tried to get me to share it on Facebook. . It was confusing because it made me think that maybe my signature doesn't actually get recorded unless I give them money or share via Facebook. . It would be nice to have some sort of confirmation that it recorded my signature even though I declined to do anything more.


.
.

Hi Tom, I have no way to find out if your vote got recorded. Actually this is my first change.org request ever, and know little about its inner workings. Those 3EUR some are reporting to be requested have nothing to do with me or my request, so my recommendation is to do no economical contribution since I have no idea where that money goes for.

Thanks a lot to all who signed, as soon as we reach 600 votes I'll send some emails to camera brands.

Regards

PS: CORRECCTION: your vote was correctly received, I have seen it in the last CHANGE.ORG update email:

"Camera manufacturers: Include RAW histograms on digital cameras
Has inspirado a 3 amigos a firmar esta petición.

— Tom Reichner, Scott Carr, y duncan courtier."

Like the others, I signed, declined the donation and sharing.

Hi all, we made 700 signs! it would be nice a final push though. I won't bother you more, this is the second and last time I'll try to encourage you all to spread the word to get more signs. Shortly we'll let camera brands know and our job will be done.

JUST SIGN HERE OR SPREAD THE WORD TO TRY TO HAVE RAW HISTOGRAMS:

https://www.change.org …rters&utm_mediu​m=copyLink

Best regards

Please forgive my ignorance. Is this something different than the histogram my 20D (and I would hope) newer cameras have? Or is it that only some models have it?

Signed.

jc1350 wrote in post #18660032
Please forgive my ignorance. Is this something different than the histogram my 20D (and I would hope) newer cameras have? Or is it that only some models have it?

Yes it's different from what you camera has. You are seeing JPEG histograms, basically an overexposed and white balanced version of the RAW file. If you are shooting RAW you'd be much more interested in the genuine RAW histogram to accurately work out how much you can expose.

Regards

I wonder if it is time to bring up the UniWB topic again? You can get a very, very close approximation of the raw histogram by shooting a black frame (lens cap on) and setting your custom WB to that image. Then go to the neutral picture style, and shoot away and look at your histograms. The images will be greenish, however you can set the WB correctly afterwards, but this way you can see what will be the closest in-camera histogram you can get of the raw.

Thanks. I didn't realize it was the jpg histogram being show. Signed.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18660142
I wonder if it is time to bring up the UniWB topic again? You can get a very, very close approximation of the raw histogram by shooting a black frame (lens cap on) and setting your custom WB to that image. Then go to the neutral picture style, and shoot away and look at your histograms. The images will be greenish, however you can set the WB correctly afterwards, but this way you can see what will be the closest in-camera histogram you can get of the raw.

For anyone who considers this, don't worry that the camera throws an error message regarding the image, tell it to use the image anyway. When I first read about this method the suggestion was to use a completely overexposed image, and that is the way I have done it. The reasoning was that the dark frame may well have some noise, and if that noise was bigger in one channel over another it could skew the result. With a modern sensor at ISO100 and using the fastest shutter speed you have, any possible noise is going to be very low indeed. So I don't think it makes any practical difference for most cameras.

On a secondary note for Canon users if you have a supported camera, and are willing to install the software, Magic Lantern dose allow the use of a RAW histogram. I have used it on my 50D, but it wasn't really very useful as the displayed histogram was very small. It may be better on one of the supported newer bodies.

Alan