That's helpful. I shoot RAW+JPG most of the time and my main camera is a Sony A6000. If I use FRV to look at both the RAW and JPG versions of the same shot, the histogram looks different, but the exposure stats show the same values (that is, the proportion of each channel that is under- or over-exposed). I don't see the extra information from the RAW data in this case - if I am trying to understand what is not exposed correctly, the RAW and JPG historgrams and statistics are giving me the same information.
The A6000 does a very good job with respect to dynamic range - and the JPGs are generally very good. I think I frequently misinterpret the need to "expand" dynamic range via HDR techniques. Images where I would have guessed HDR was required really don't - the camera captures the entire range with only minor under- or over-exposure. At least, that is what FRV is showing me for the shots I thought would be "difficult". Beyond the obvious situatilons where you are shooting a dark room with a very bright window (rare for me), I am starting to think HDR is not needed. And, the A6000 has an "Auto HDR" function (it takes multiple shots and combines them in camera) that works very well if I want "insurance" that I capture the shot.
I realize this is a very complex issue. Perhaps some sample photos that illustrate the issues you describe would be helpful. If I can "see" it - then I understand it better. If these are theoretical issues that I can't see without doing a lot of "pixel peeping" (I have an iMac 27 Retina - so that is possible!), then I am not sure how useful this is.
Again, thanks for the response. This is the kind of discussion that is very helpful to users, I think.
David
That's helpful. I shoot RAW
That's helpful. I shoot RAW+JPG most of the time and my main camera is a Sony A6000. If I use FRV to look at both the RAW and JPG versions of the same shot, the histogram looks different, but the exposure stats show the same values (that is, the proportion of each channel that is under- or over-exposed). I don't see the extra information from the RAW data in this case - if I am trying to understand what is not exposed correctly, the RAW and JPG historgrams and statistics are giving me the same information.
The A6000 does a very good job with respect to dynamic range - and the JPGs are generally very good. I think I frequently misinterpret the need to "expand" dynamic range via HDR techniques. Images where I would have guessed HDR was required really don't - the camera captures the entire range with only minor under- or over-exposure. At least, that is what FRV is showing me for the shots I thought would be "difficult". Beyond the obvious situatilons where you are shooting a dark room with a very bright window (rare for me), I am starting to think HDR is not needed. And, the A6000 has an "Auto HDR" function (it takes multiple shots and combines them in camera) that works very well if I want "insurance" that I capture the shot.
I realize this is a very complex issue. Perhaps some sample photos that illustrate the issues you describe would be helpful. If I can "see" it - then I understand it better. If these are theoretical issues that I can't see without doing a lot of "pixel peeping" (I have an iMac 27 Retina - so that is possible!), then I am not sure how useful this is.
Again, thanks for the response. This is the kind of discussion that is very helpful to users, I think.
David