RAW only and Histograms

Here is a little tip I noticed on the Canon CPN site.

If you only shoot RAW files this is a handy tip. Half the total image data is contained in the first stop on the right of the histogram. To prevent losing this information, the rule is always to expose as far to the right of the histogram as possible. EOS camera histograms and the flashing highlight warnings on the rear screen are based on jpeg data, as processed out by the camera. What this means is, if you are shooting RAW, you have more latitude in the highlights than the camera suggests. You can afford to overexpose the highlights slightly, even if the highlight warning is flashing. We're not talking stops, but 1/3 to 1/2 a stop can make the difference between a good picture and a great one. Try it and see.

Has anybody noticed a benefit or tried this tip?

Welcome to "Chimpers Anonymous".

DunnoWhen wrote in post #7052996
Welcome to "Chimpers Anonymous".

1. I'm not the best on this site.
2. I chimp
3. Everyone chimps.
4. the places I go some of the others also..chimp
5. Those who say they dont chimp..chimp.

The information you posted is 100% correct and quite well known general knowledge - Picture Styles are applied to create an embedded JPEG, which you see on the LCD, and from which the histogram is generated. But it's good knowledge so it never hurts to have it out there again.

David Ransley wrote in post #7053087

5. Those who say they dont chimp..chimp.

I guarantee you that when I shoot film, I most definitely do not chimp.

That's why I have my Picture Style set to Nuetral in camera. It's the closest you are going to get to the RAW histogram.

perryge wrote in post #7053328
The information you posted is 100% correct and quite well known general knowledge - Picture Styles are applied to create an embedded JPEG, which you see on the LCD, and from which the histogram is generated. But it's good knowledge so it never hurts to have it out there again.

I guarantee you that when I shoot film, I most definitely do not chimp.

But I frequently used Polaroids.

perryge wrote in post #7053328
I guarantee you that when I shoot film, I most definitely do not chimp.

Is checking how many shots are left on the roll considered chimping?

Anyone care to explain "chimp" and "chimping"?

Field of 33 wrote in post #7054713
Anyone care to explain "chimp" and "chimping"?

Actually DunnoWhen's, comment isn't really appropriate to the OPs "Expose Right" tip. I never look at the photo when I look at my LCD, I look at the histogram exclusively.

Chimping is looking at your screen to see what you've just taken and ooh ooh ooohing and Ah Ah Ahhhing over the screen. Checking your histogram after a shot is one of the best things you can do to insure a properly exposed photo when using your in camera meter.

Chimping--Look HERE

A prime chance for a Rick Roll--but the real deal

Like the others have said, this is good, established advice for RAW shooters. I'ts called "Expose To The Right".

A couple notes:

First, this is not recommended for jpeg shooting, because once a camera processor creates a jpeg, all "unused" RAW data is discarded, so making significant adjustments in exposure levels can create unsatisfactory artifacts. Plus, the brightest highlights (ones that would flash in the histogram) are discarded when creating the jpeg, whereas, as the OP stated, some amount is retained in the RAW data.

Note number two is that when using this method you still have to pay attention to your highlights -- it's still possible to blow out highlights and you need to make sure that you are not overestimating the RAW highlight recovery capability.

An example where I am especially conscious of preserving highlight detail is when I'm shooting a scene with bright clouds (snow would be another example). I typically want my exposure to retain good cloud/snow detail, even if some of the scene comes out a touch dark. In this kind of scene I'll favor a low ISO and if need be a tripod or other good support because I'll end up needing to boost the shadows a bit, but I'd rather do that than lose the highlight detail.

In the above, I'm still "ETTR" in principle, but with great care to bring the bright highlights to the edge but not over the edge. In this example you might see more of the image to the left of the histogram center than you'd like, but that again with RAW is more easily recovered in post processing.

tzalman wrote in post #7054564
Is checking how many shots are left on the roll considered chimping?

Only if you use the advanced technique of opening the back very quickly to check the number of shots remaining.

If you have the camera set to blink the out-of-range highlights, the OP is pointing out that this is a JPEG setting, and some of those blinking highlights will actually be saved in the RAW image.

But to get a good exposure that not only saves the highlights but also reduces noise and extends shadow detail (at least to the maximum ability of the sensor), pay attention to [B}which[/B] highlights are blinking.

Select the blinking tone that represents "the brightest tone that must retain detail" and adjust the exposure so that tone is just barely below the blink level if you're shooting JPEG and just at or slightly over the blinking level if you're shooting RAW.

"The brightest tone that must retain detail" is most often a textured white, but it's really up to the photographer to choose the tone he wants that to be.

Chimping Definition provided at http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Chimping

Thanks, I started looking at the Histogram and shoot in RAW, but never actually realised that RAW had the ability to recover some highlights. Coupled with LiveView shooting, where the histogram can be viewed on the LCD, it provides the photographer some good information.

Other than that, one would have to go for HDR photography with multiple shots at different exposures. This will obviously not do for all scenarios.

David Ransley wrote in post #7056761
never actually realised that RAW had the ability to recover some highlights

Caution with the term recovery.

There is a limited possibility to reconstruct blown (saturated) pixels based on their surrounding; this is rather guesswork with the current raw processors. This can be done only in raw format, before demosaicing.

The other usage has nothing to do with recovering anything. The "straightforward" processing of in-camera JPEG leads automatically to the loss of contrast in the very highlights; everything in the top region seems to be flat and blown. When processing the raw data, nothing needs to be recovered, as the original data is there, only the JPEG processing messes it up.

This may appear as irrelevant semantics, but IMO it is important to understand, what is happening.