5D4 exposure variance ..... can anyone explain this?

John Sheehy wrote in post #19111353
.
It's easy enough to examine Tom's RAW files in RAWDigger. If the masked pixels have the same sigma, then the actual combined analog and mathematical gains are the same, and then if there is any difference in RAW histograms or rendered brightness, then the RAW data was treated differently because of metadata in Tom's conversions. If the masked pixels are scaled differently, then the firmware did something different.

The relative histograms vs sigmas in RAWDigger should determine if exposure was actually the same.
.

.
I have never heard of RAW Digger before, but I can Google it and see if it is something that I could do. . If it's real quick and easy to get started with that, then I may do so.

Cary suggested a thing that enabled me to share RAW files with others over the internet. . I think maybe it was called We Transfer, or something like that. . Could I just use that again, or does it have to be this RAW Digger thing that you are talking about?

.

Highlight Tone Priority actually does indeed change your raw, there is no way to apply it after the fact or take it off.

Info for the others in the thread that assume differently.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19111515
Highlight Tone Priority actually does indeed change your raw, there is no way to apply it after the fact or take it off.

Info for the others in the thread that assume differently.

But the claim is that you can replicate HTP simply by underexposing a bit while the RAW is being shot. Better than HTP, during postprocessing you can restore the scene to its correct Brightness, while using Highlight control to dial back those portions of the scene.

Wilt wrote in post #19112103
But the claim is that you can replicate HTP simply by underexposing a bit while the RAW is being shot. Better than HTP, during postprocessing you can restore the scene to its correct Brightness, while using Highlight control to dial back those portions of the scene.

HTP works much better than years ago when people gave that advice. Now there is no real substitution for setting the camera to auto ISO, use EC as needed, coupled with HTP. It works very well and much less work.

Wilt wrote in post #19112103
But the claim is that you can replicate HTP simply by underexposing a bit while the RAW is being shot. Better than HTP, during postprocessing you can restore the scene to its correct Brightness, while using Highlight control to dial back those portions of the scene.

However, HTP gives you review images and OOC JPEGs and embedded JPEGs in the RAW files that are already more correct in brightness. HTP isn't any really different than some cameras that start at ISO 200 with non-expanded ISOs; many such cameras just have what Canon calls "HTP" as the default. It's not a trick; it is just a decision to have more highlight headroom in the RAW data, relative to metered grey. This doesn't work out well at low ISOs with cameras with poor DR, especially with ones with visible post-gain banding noise like many older Canons, but it has very little noise penalty at low ISOs in cameras with good DR, and at high ISOs in all cameras.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19112123
HTP works much better than years ago when people gave that advice. Now there is no real substitution for setting the camera to auto ISO, use EC as needed, coupled with HTP. It works very well and much less work.

I saw HTP as a safety buffer back when using cameras that had auto-ISO in M mode, but no "EC" (ISO bias) yet. The only case where that extra stop was insufficient to stop blown RAW highlights was something like a thin white object in the light against a dark, shaded background, where it became necessary to change to a mode that had EC, or full manual.

Sorry, I thought that I posted this already.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19111511
.
I have never heard of RAW Digger before, but I can Google it and see if it is something that I could do. . If it's real quick and easy to get started with that, then I may do so.

Cary suggested a thing that enabled me to share RAW files with others over the internet. . I think maybe it was called We Transfer, or something like that. . Could I just use that again, or does it have to be this RAW Digger thing that you are talking about?

.

Someone else could look at the RAW data if you provide a link to two files (a dark one and a bright one which should be the same).

The reason I would go the RAWDigger route instead of a RAW converter is that the RAW converter has no way of showing you what is going on under the hood.

If the DOF is clearly different, though, you pretty much have your answer. Only a different aperture could do that for the same subject and distance.