Histogram: is it good to follow or not

i learned to look at the histogram of my camera while taking shots, but i noticed lately that some pictures might be bad on the histogram but when opened on pc or printed they look just OK and might be even great for me...
is the histogram always right??? (and i am asking this for exposure only)

yep, it's always "right" it just doesn't always look right. depending on your shot it can take many shapes and sizes. the trick is learning when to know when its supposed to look how it looks when its right. and when you figure it out please pm me with how you did it because im still struggling.

J.

jptsr1 wrote in post #4374379
yep, it's always "right" it just doesn't always look right. depending on your shot it can take many shapes and sizes. the trick is learning when to know when its supposed to look how it looks when its right. and when you figure it out please pm me with how you did it because im still struggling.

J.

If i did understand what you (which i doubt )
i think i still have a long way to learn... but i am sure of one thing... going M is the best way to get to the perfect histogram

sorry, looking back at my post i realized that i made it much more complicated than it actually is. that wasn't my intention at all. what i was trying to say is yes, the histogram is always right. it is a graphic interpretation of the "brightness" of your exposure (or color depending on which one your looking at). it will always be an accurate representation of that. what changes is what you do. the histogram for the same subject will be different if your settings are different. the easiest way to see this is set your camera on M, snap a picture with whatever settings (ISO aperture and shutter speed) you like. now with those same settings snap the same picture but this time dial in +1 exposure compensation (above whatever you normally have it set at). now look at the histograms of both shots and take note of the difference. dialing in the +1 EC moves your histogram to the right correct?

one of the smarter folks on this board will hopefully chime in with a better explination. point is the histogram is just a tool to help make the correct exposure. you have to decide what it is saying and how to interpret it. since there is no perfect exposure there is no perfect histogram. take another look at the link we discussed in the other thread. once you have tried it a few times it will make more sense.

J.

Is the histogram always right? A good question, and maybe not so easily answered:

https://photography-on-the.net …10901&highlight​=histogram

I see the histogram mainly as a tool to keep me out of trouble -- BUT it does not replace looking at the actual picture. Since every picture is different, we can only make broad generalizations about what the histogram ought to look like, but it can tell us some useful things like clipped pixels or sometimes (but not always) proper exposure level. I find it more useful during post processing to get the most out of a picture when it needs help.

It may not be "proper" but I chimp most of my shots (landscapes) to get the exposure right based on the histogram.

If you are shooting RAW then the histogram is probably not accurate. That is because the camera writes a small jpg together with the RAW in order to use for the LCD display and this jpg is the source for the histgram. Jpgs have less dynamic range than RAWs because highlights get clipped when they are made, so the histogram can show clipping even when the RAW is unclipped.
Here is a good article:
http://www.digitalphot​opro.com/tech/exposing​-for-raw.html

Also remember that the histogram will be influenced by the balance of light sources in the image. If you shoot a perfectly exposed blue sky, your histogram will look very odd. This can be a big deal when you shoot aircraft for example.

When looking at a histogram (whether JPG or raw & JPG)...as a general rule what should it look like?..should it always be mounded in the center and trail off completely to the right and left, all the way to the edges? I only use it as a guide for exposure myself.

One solution would be to shoot on full "M" & put something white in the picture where you don't have something bright like the sky or chrome in the shot. Take a pic & chimp to the right.
Then remove the white object & shoot the pic with those settings.

JeffreyG mentions "Shoot the shirt" in post #18 here: "So I'll walk in, set the shutter speed I want (say 1/320) for wrestling, f/2, ISO1600 and take a shot. I like to shoot a kid in a white outfit like the example I posted so I can see if his uniform blows out."
Indoor Sports and Canon 40D

What I really do is this if I can:
First set the f-stop & shutter speed I need. Then adjust the ISO. Need an exposure crutch?

Note: This is NOT the same as Expose (to the) Right where, for instance you only have something of low value like a blue flower with green leaves, you would try to push the blue/green to the right & then reduce the exposure back to "normal" in RAW post processing.
So don't confuse the two methods.

Amir,
Put your camera in Av mode.
Fill the entire frame with a white t-shirt and take a shot.
Then a gray t-shirt,
Then a black t-shirt.

All of the images will look the same, and so will the histograms.
But if you look at the shot from the white shirt, with its centered histogram spike, and you say to yourself, "That's way underexposed. A white shirt should give me a histogram spike very near the right side." Then you will adjust EC accordingly and shoot again. Now you have used your histogram as a valuable tool.

Of course, few images are this simple, and properly interpreting histograms from more complex compositions requires practice. But you'll get there.

dcyphert wrote in post #4450205
When looking at a histogram (whether JPG or raw & JPG)...as a general rule what should it look like?..should it always be mounded in the center and trail off completely to the right and left, all the way to the edges? I only use it as a guide for exposure myself.

hard to come up with a "general rule" for histograms because diffrent shots give you diffrent shapes depending on the light. but in answer to your question, not all histograms look like the standard bell curve.

J.

It's good to remember that your histogram is just a tool. Sometimes the effect you are looking for in a shot will have blown highlights. Does this mean the shot is no good and just be deleted ?. Of course not, if this is what you were aiming for.
technically the histogram will always be right. but that doesnt necessarily make the photo 'right'.
Your eyes are the best way to judge a photo. Use the histogram, but dont live your life by it.

amironsi wrote in post #4374365
i learned to look at the histogram of my camera while taking shots, but i noticed lately that some pictures might be bad on the histogram but when opened on pc or printed they look just OK and might be even great for me...
is the histogram always right??? (and i am asking this for exposure only)

I suggest you download a picture from the camera and view it in your post-processing software.

Then, put the card back in the camera with picture still on it and view the histogram in the camera as well.

Compare these two histograms and see where the camera is off from your software. The software will be more accurate (i.e. photoshop, LR, etc...).

I did this since I found that when the histogram in the camera looked okay for highlight side, I had blinkies and in photoshop the blinkies showed the histogram in photoshop with blownout highlights. I tend to believe that when your camera is showing blinkies where you don't want them you should reshoot the shot; the histogram takes second place on accuracy in this case; therefore, reshoot the shot if you have blinkies vs the histogram's results.

Perhaps that helps.