The best tip I ever got is when you're shooting in RAW (which should almost be always), set your photo style to B&W. When you review between shots, you can see just the contrast and exposure value without color giving you a false perspective. Then when you import the RAW file, everything is still full color. This helps a LOT with shooting colorful subjects, especially pure reds. You might review on your camera and think "that looks good", then realize later at home that it's over or under exposed.
+Case The histogram is good for everything he described in the video. But I like the B&W review because you can get a better feel for the contrast when quickly reviewing. Like when I shoot motorsports and only have a few seconds between shots, I like to quickly review, adjust, and try something new. I know the histogram should me more center balanced, but B&W helps me make sure the wheel wells aren't too dark, and the hood isn't too bright. A polarizing filter can bring down hood glare or amplify it, and a fill flash can bring out the wheel wells, along with some interesting blur with a freeze at the end.
+AZREDFERN Still can't really see what difference does it make, but I guess I'll try it, then, maybe it is indeed better. Can't hurt to try something new, after all.
Super informative video. I know most professionals shot in raw. I shot professionally for 30 years, the last 4 in digital. I exposed my digital images the same way I exposed film and always shot in Jpeg only. Much less time with post, and in the thousands of images, never had an exposure issue because I came from a film background and understood how to expose and understood lighting.
As long as you don´t use Canon 5D III, 5D II, 6D, 7D, 60D, 50D, 700D, 650D, 600D, 550D, 1100D and Eos M you will not be able to get the raw histogram in camera. I think 70D, 100D and 1200D also are able to show the raw histogram but I am not sure.
Camera companies should have raw histograms years ago built into their cameras. I cannot believe we are still using jpg previewed histos in 2017. I've been calling for it for years.
Another good tip that I got when I started taking photo's with a more professional camera, was to look at the scene, determine what's the most important there, determine if its in the highlights or shadows, and make sure you don't over or under expose in the histogram. If you are shooting a bride with white dress, underexposing the dark wall in the background is no big deal, clipping the white of the dress however is. and indeed, with a black cat it would be the other way around. Also the advice was to not push it all the way to the limits, as the sensor usually resolves less detail towards the outer edges of the histogram.
This is the nudge I needed to simply start paying attention to the histogram and to start getting a feel for the relationship between it and the shot I've taken. Judging by what you've said in this (and the previous video), I will NOT be using the histogram to decide on my exposure. I'll be deciding the exposure myself and then looking at the histogram so I know what to expect in situations where I can't trust my LCD (bright sunny days). Thanks again for this video Matt. You've become an absolutely invaluable resource when it comes to photography.
Fuji camera's also show the JPG histogram, that's why you can overexpose on it slightly and still be fine to recover those highlights in RAW processing
RED cameras have solved the RAW exposure problem with their histogram display, making it super easy to get perfect RAW exposure. First there are two “goal posts”. The left goal post bar shows the amount of pixels (up to 25% of the total image) that are underexposed or noisy. So when your left goal post fills to the top, then at least 25% of the RAW image is going to be noisy. The right goal post shows the amount of pixels (up to 25%) that are overexposed or clipped. Then there are traffic lights (red, green and blue) that light up to indicate which color channels are overexposed and clipped. So assuming you don’t want to overexpose anything on the RED, just adjust your iris, shutter or ND until all the traffic lights just turn off. And you’ve also maximized the dynamic range because the brightest part of your scene is just below clipping. Note that on the RED camera, the actual RGB histogram between the goal posts is affected by metadata settings like ISO and white balance, so don’t rely on it to avoid clipping or noise. Use the traffic lights and goal posts to properly expose RAW on RED. Also remember that newer RED cameras have 17+ stops of dynamic range, so unless your scene has more dynamic range than can be captured by its sensor your left and right goal posts should never fill up. Every dark and bright part in the scene will be recorded by the sensor.
@2:30 - I couldn't resist "If it's going to be a Low Key kind of shot." Here's the funny: Loki is the name of Matt's cat! Ha! I love homonyms! They are some of my favorite words. BTW - thanks for (once again?) explaining/teaching us about the histogram. You are so right: it all depends on the sort of shot you are aiming for Low Key, Mid Key, High Key, etc. *Thank you for enlightening* me on the on camera Histogram vs the on computer Histogram. What a difference! I didn't know that cameras only show the Histogram of the JPEG file - that kinda sucks - not very accurate for me since I always shoot in RAW.
I liked that you made that very important point about the need to map what your scene is with what the histogram shows. There is big misconception about histogram. Almost everyone says that all you need is histogram to get perfect picture, which is not true. All you need is sense of what your scene is and how perfect histogram would look like for it and then you must map that imaginary histogram with the one on the camera. All that process is not very occurate because it involves a lot of guessing. In many cases it work just ok, but for the best result one still needs to rely on other tools.
super well explained! Thank you. Ive been shooting for about two years and only used the histogram a few times. Now that i want to get serious with my shooting, i see the importance.
Nikon's WRGB histogram display in the DSLR's still image review mode can be used to find blown out hot spots in individual color channels. When you zoom into a review image, the WRGB histograms are dynamically revised to show the color content of the visibly magnified area of the image. To make these JPEG histograms more closely reflect the underlying RGB color channels of the RAW image, I shoot RAW using the Portrait profile and the Cloudy White Balance setting. This produces JPEG's with a fairly flat highlight tone curve at a color temperature near daylight. Each of the four vertical sections of the histogram represents about two-stops of exposure (though the left-most section actually contains all stops below the top six stops).
from all review and tips I saw before, regardless from who, yours review and tips are the most relevant and I able to understand it without blowing my head. thanks a lot for the information.
You could also add that adjusting the picture profile (even if you shoot raw) to have a flatter image will in fact produce a back screen histogram that is more in line with the histogram of the raw file. This give me more confidence when i'm shooting.
To Phil Weatherly: most cameras have a way of setting a “style” for your JPEG pictures. You can choose warm or cool, edgy or soft, etc. These transformations change the JPEG histogram, perhaps by a lot. Current cameras have a “feature” that they show you the stylized JPEG histogram even if you are recording just raw images. Bummer, but that’s the way it is. To minimize the discrepancy when you are shooting raw, choose the JPEG style that makes the pictures look like your raw images do when you first import them and before you have adjusted color balance, contrast, sharpness, clarity, vibrancy, etc.
Well done Matt! Was not aware of the difference between in-camera histogram readings of RAW files versus those in post-production software. This revelation alone was worth watching your video. Thanks!
New to photography and therefore watching a lot of video on various subjects. I came across yours on Histograms and makes total sense as compared to a number of others I’ve viewed. Subscribed 👍
Just stumbled on to your Chanel. What a clear explanation of a (supposedly) difficult topic. Also impressed by the quality of the responses. Chalk yourself up another subscriber.
Finally, someone who's highlighting the issue with jpeg histograms, thank you! I've been so frustrated with manufacturers simply not providing correct histograms, and I don't know if it's a processing thing or an ignorance thing, but it's crazy they're providing histograms that aren't accurate and there's never been any incentive for them to change it because most people simply have no idea. All I want is the ability to accurately understand my exposure in camera, but it seems that's too much to ask!? I asked the Hasselblad rep at Photokina 2016 whether the new X1D would have a true RAW histogram and he seemed to think it's obvious it would, but he also had no clue that nobody else has accurate histograms so I was left wondering if he just had no idea and was straight-up guessing. Is it that camera manufacturers just don't know what they're doing when it comes to firmware (hence the need for third-party solutions like Magic Lantern)?
Is it lying so much as protecting people from themselves? It seems like it would make sense to give a bit of safety or wiggle room on either end so that if you do use the histogram to push your exposure to the edge, you're not immediately running into brick walls and blowing or blacking out your shots. If people realized that if your histogram touches the edge, you're already clipping, people would be afraid to get close to the edge and end up under/over exposing all their shots out of paranoia. If you want to maximize that wiggle room to squeeze the most out, that's great, but for most people having that space is probably a major benefit.
This makes absolutely zero sense. It's like making a multimeter that always overestimates voltage just to be safe, or a ruler that always shows longer lengths. It's a tool, it's supposed to measure, not give you "wiggle room". In any case, how would they possibly know whether you'd be better off overexposing vs underexposing? Even if it was a valid argument, why would they not have the option to provide an accurate measurement? I'd put this down to ignorance/incompetence rather than conscious decision any day, or there may be a real technical reason for it that isn't obvious.
I shot video for 2 years on the Sony a7S. My experience (as well as others I spoke with) was that even when shooting dark scenes, it was better to overexpose a bit (without peaking) - similar to the "expose to the right" strategy. Having that "healthy histogram" represented the fact that that you're spreading out the data into more "buckets" so that there's more information in the shot. This was important because the video files are only 8-bit, and also not RAW, so if you put all of the information into just a couple stops of the dynamic range, there's just not much useful data there to work with. Maybe if it's black on black on black, it doesn't matter, but I found that in the real world, even for dark/low key scenes, my video looked much, much better when I gathered as much data as possible, and adjusted (darker or lighter) later.
thank you so much for your explanation. I'm newbie in photography world and some articles suggested me to aiming for the perfect histogram. I'm happy to hear that such thing like a perfect histogram doesn't exist :-)
Great bit of advice. Didn't know that about screen's histogram was representative of a jpeg not RAW. Explains why my RAW histogram is much different in LR. Like a whole stop difference.
The only pictures that I delete in the camera. Are the obvious out of focus and obvious pics I didn't want. Like when I take a picture of the ground, sky or something that I didn't care about. Everything else gets uploaded to a larger screen for me to look at.
Very helpful reminder, well stated and clear. Really like the suggestion to run tests of the histogram with your camera & lens set up. Helpful to remember to learn the different look of the histogram for realistic as compared to a different desired aesthetic. Many thanks
really great explanation! no other video i've seen on histograms has address the issues about photos not all having the same histogram graph style or aiming for the histogram to be a wavy form. i also thought that doesn't make sense if the photo is naturally darker or lighter due to whats being photographed. the key here is to get a sense of what you thinknthe histogram should loom like based upon what you're photographing and knowing how to look at the histogram to tell you if you are getting too much light in or not enough. i didn't know that about the raw images. thanks... just subbed for that!
Thanks Matt great video, if you feel you have blown out your photo either end of the histogram please don't delete them until you have seen them in Lightroom or your photo developing software. You could have some keepers. With SD cards at the lowest prices I have seen in a long time and getting bigger you should have enough room not to have to delete. Hope that little bit helps beginners and enthusiasts.
Great vid. I figured out the JPG histogram thing myself and found setting the "flattest" JPG picture profile makes the one displayed on the camera closer to the RAW. In my case with my Fuji X cameras I use "Pro-Neg Standard" with highlights and shadows set to -2 for maximum recovery. Of course, this can make for an unexciting JPG but the Pro-Neg files actually edit rather nicely if you decide to use the JPG -- at least for the crap that I shoot, lol.
From my experience when the histogram goes to the highlight area there is more damage than when it goes to the black. Overexposed photos are completely destroyed. Underexposed may have a change to survive with a little more noise and far less dynamic range. I usually use exposure compensation and I try my histogram to touch very little the white highlight side because that gives greater dynamic range without blow out results. When the histogram goes to the left dark side there is more safety but mediocre results. Histogram needs balance and a little risk in extreme conditions like outdoor night photography, or landscape with snow. Then the rules of histogram can be ignored for better results.
Great explanations with lots of examples! I didn’t know that the histograms in my camera would be for JPEG files only. Learned a lot from you today. Thx
Yeah I see this a lot where people will say that a histogram that's shape like a symmetrical mountain (or mound, or bell) is the "ideal" histogram. I think the biggest key points I've found is don't clip the highlights (so no spikes on the right) and don't clip the blacks/shadows (so no spiles on the left either). One needs to take into consideration (and think about) what they're shooting. For example, if you're shooting snow, you're histogram is likely to be more biased to the right due to the whites and highlights in the image. This doesn't mean the exposure is bad, it just means theres more bright / highlight areas than dark areas for example. I'd say if you're still new to the idea of the histogram, then if all else fails turn on the "blinkies" or highlight warning. I keep mine on anyway (even though I'm experience I just like to have that extra insurance that I can quickly look at a preview and see if something might be blown out or not and not have to look at the histogram so much and trying to figure it out--even though I can interpret the histogram--it's just faster in some cases to use highlight warnings). T-stops (or transmission) is one thing that I think many people aren't aware of forget when shooting. I know I have. And for example, I had a lens that would consistently under expose even though the camera said that the exposure was correct for the metering mode and scene, but I later realized that I usually had to purposely overexpose by about 1/3 of a stop to get an actaul "proper" exposure as to what I saw with my eyes versus what the camera said was a correct exposure. And to find this, it takes time to learn your lens and realize if you have to make minor adjustments (when shooting) to compensate for light transmission loss (which I think is more common the longer the focal length).
Hi Matt, what about Expose to the right? That's my rule of thumb, as I use my camera to capture data as opposed to a picture. The picture is done is LR afterwards, with cleaner blacks. Felix
Red cameras show RAW histogram along with two "goal posts" which show the percentage of the sensor's pixels that are noise (blacks) or clipped (highlights)
The fuss about the histogram showing the JPG preview histo is a bit overblown as one can see this as a safety feature. The bottom line is that if the relevant tones are inside the limits you can adjust in post as needed. If you are a JPG shooter then the auto exposure is most likely pretty good anyway. If you really want to get fussy, learn to meter.
It took me a while to figure out the way to get correct exposure. It is in part a mindset. Cameras think they're looking at an average scene because this is what they've been told. The exposure meters in our cameras, as you would know have been told (programmed) that they will always be looking at an average scene (18% gray) which is of course a landscape. The way I set exposure now is to look at the cameras exposure and make a judgment. So if the subject is back lit I know the camera will underexpose by a stop or so and I adjust accordingly. If I take the shot of the black cat on a black rug I know that the camera thinks its looking at an underexposed average scene (a landscape) and it will overexpose the scene by a stop or so and I wind it down a stop or so. An excellent example of the camera underexposing the subject is camera two in your video. The brightness of the window forces auto-exposure to underexpose you. It thinks its looking at a typical landscape at midday.The histogram from this camera would show a lump at either extreme. Have been following you for a while Matt and enjoy you're posts. Keep up the good work. Good luck with the move to the big apple. What a time to be there. Welcome to Trumpland.
Matt do you ever look at the color histogram on the back of the camera. Sometimes if you are taking images of something of one dominate color like a bunch of red flowers the red channel can get totally blown out and lose detail while the regular histogram isn't showing the overall exposure getting blown out.
You can see this after taking the shot and viewing the histogram in channels. The pre histogram is a combined view so you cannot see blown reds (and yellows in sunsets). So if you have major reds or yellows in the shot take the histogram with a little more room on the highlight side. I take my landscapes with the histogram to the right but not touching and adjust the shot back to what I saw in post. By shooting to the right with the histogram you keep all your highlights and preserve more shadow detail. Now you can make everything work but it does take some post processing work and syc all the shots to those adjustments so you only make rough exposure adjustments once (so it's not all that time consuming). Some photographers just expose to the subject with people subjects and that's fine but for a fantastic landscape, shoot your histogram to the right and keep everything!
THE most reliable for 95% cases is a good EVF. You see tonality, clipping, colors etc. And you do it immediately as you see it directly. Histograms are based to JPEG as well instead RAW, so you can't really trust them so well. That's reason why you need to convert raw in camera to JPEG with clipping removed so JPEG can show the data. The histogram is important for situations where you are adjusting multi-spectrum lights like UV and mixed lights as you can easily separate Bayer sensor limits that way when doing long time critical studio product photography. Even for playbacks EVF wins as you see all in direct sunlight instead need to chimp LCD at rear.
Awesome info! I didn't know that about the in-camera histogram being based on a jpeg conversion. I'll definitely take that into account when shooting more creatively now. BTW Welcome to the states! I hope you love living in NYC!
I'm sure Matt knows far more than me about most, if not all aspects of photography, but I never ever look at the histogram, and don't have it enabled. I only shoot in RAW and edit in Lightroom. Of course we all try to "get it right in the camera", but if out doing wildlife or sports photography, you can't check the histogram after every shot. You have to capture the moment, making adjustments in processing...... Different of course if you are in a studio where the lighting is consistent.
It's good that you are correcting miss information. Could you use your platform to correct '0' = proper exposure & 'the meter get's it wrong' both are phrases that totally confuse beginners...to a point they may just put their cameras back in the cupboard & give up.
People seem to be treating this video as telling you hard fast rules you need to follow when I think Matt's whole point is that the in camera histogram is limited in what it shows you. It's a good tool to give you an idea what's going on but don't trust it as your end all be all for your shot. Just understand what it's telling you and what it's not able to tell you. Especially if you do a lot of work in post (you should) knowing where your histogram is gives you an idea what you'll have to work with later when you get home.
In dark settings I'll purposely underexpose slightly on my Canon M50 as I've noticed that the histogram may show "perfect black" and "perfect white" but the picture is often much too "bright" for the light in the setting. For example, at night I don't want the picture to look lighter than it really was.
always good to remind about, my syster has photography lessons at school and all of these misstakes were in her sylabus... Had to explain her about it but still she will have to answer the exams according to the misstakes of the teacher... (sorry for average english)
I think one of the reasons most cameras don't have a histogram based on RAW is because you can still recover highlights when only one channel (for example red) is blown out. But how well that works really depends on the software you're using. One camera that does feature RAW histograms is the Leica Monochrom because it's black & white only so you don't depend on how some software interprets the RAW data.
Thanks Matt...will have to try and make more time to study histograms. I often use the histogram 'after' the shot, rather than while shooting as I use the meter or exposure compensation as needed via the meter. I'd like to know if a person can use the histogram for actually 'choosing' one, or all your camera settings for a shot?
when I shoot something with a lot of dynamic range, I put my picture style to neutral, which I have adjusted to have very low constrast. that way, it looks very similar to the raw file I will open at home :)
I looked on my Ciroflex TLR and couldn't find the histogram. I thought maybe it was on a more modern camera so I looked on the newest camera I have my Minolta X G 9 and it didn't have one either. As a subscriber I really enjoy your videos and learn a lot even if sometimes I don't understand a word you're saying. by the way welcome to the US. 😁
Did not know that about the histogram on the back of the camera not being accurate for the extreme highlights & shadows, due to being based on Jpeg preview, compared with the RAW image I import into the computer.
There is one "stills" camera that will show you a histogram of raw - Red cameras like the Epic, Weapon, etc. Granted, they are mainly used for motion, but the "S" in DSMC is for Stills and there is a whole community of Red users that shoot stills,, which on the newest cameras are 35MP images with amazing dynamic range.
Hey Matt, great video. you need a second camera zoomed in on your face about 20 degrees off the main camera for those points where you want more engagement in what your saying. the wide angle gopro side on showing darkness i found off putting and disengaging. thats just my opinion though and not gospel. again great content but the side on gopro cuts were a bit jarring and disengaging. but again great content
Great info but the backlit subject on the B camera was bothering the hell out of me. That's like watching someone burn food in a cooking tutorial video. BUT...great info!
Wow! You and Tony Northrup are saying the complete opposite about whether it's better to overexpose vs underexpose for post processing adjustments. Tony is saying the highlight section of the Histogram is cleaner and therefore can be easily adjusted down. you are saying its better to underexpose because there's more data to work with.
Thanks, Matt, particularly for the info on in-camera histograms being for JPEGS only. As so many photographers shoot raw+JPEG or raw only, why don't manufacturers include raw histograms? I suppose it you knew you would have told us! By the way, do you think you could turn the radio off during your next video? There was an annoying background noise in this one.
Great tip about the raw/jpeg histogram.. Why don't they show the raw histogram instead? Is it because some editors have different levels of raw processing capabilities? Or is it just because it's a jpeg that's displayed on the screen at the time? Can any DSLR's even show the proper full raw image on a camera screen?
Could have needed that information about the jpeg histogram at the weekend...would had saved me some headache as to what my camera wants from me ;) Was surprised that some shots where way better manageable in terms of high and low pixel information then the camera told me there is.
The best tip I ever got is when you're shooting in RAW (which should almost be always), set your photo style to B&W. When you review between shots, you can see just the contrast and exposure value without color giving you a false perspective. Then when you import the RAW file, everything is still full color. This helps a LOT with shooting colorful subjects, especially pure reds. You might review on your camera and think "that looks good", then realize later at home that it's over or under exposed.
+AZREDFERN yep, I suggest this in several vids
Is there an advantage to doing what you described instead of just looking at the RGB histogram where you can see the individual channels as well?
+Matt Granger That's probably where I heard it then ^u^
They don't teach that in any undergraduate class.
+Case The histogram is good for everything he described in the video. But I like the B&W review because you can get a better feel for the contrast when quickly reviewing. Like when I shoot motorsports and only have a few seconds between shots, I like to quickly review, adjust, and try something new. I know the histogram should me more center balanced, but B&W helps me make sure the wheel wells aren't too dark, and the hood isn't too bright. A polarizing filter can bring down hood glare or amplify it, and a fill flash can bring out the wheel wells, along with some interesting blur with a freeze at the end.
+AZREDFERN Still can't really see what difference does it make, but I guess I'll try it, then, maybe it is indeed better. Can't hurt to try something new, after all.
Super informative video. I know most professionals shot in raw. I shot professionally for 30 years, the last 4 in digital. I exposed my digital images the same way I exposed film and always shot in Jpeg only. Much less time with post, and in the thousands of images, never had an exposure issue because I came from a film background and understood how to expose and understood lighting.
Wow, this information about the camera not showing the histogram of the RAW file is really critical, and I didn't know that before!
Aaron Yang yeah. that's why I like shooting with a flatter JPEG profile so I get a better idea of what the raw will look like
***** That's also a good tip. I'll change my settings right away.
Aaron Yang
As long as you don´t use Canon 5D III, 5D II, 6D, 7D, 60D, 50D, 700D, 650D, 600D, 550D, 1100D and Eos M you will not be able to get the raw histogram in camera. I think 70D, 100D and 1200D also are able to show the raw histogram but I am not sure.
Camera companies should have raw histograms years ago built into their cameras. I cannot believe we are still using jpg previewed histos in 2017. I've been calling for it for years.
Another good tip that I got when I started taking photo's with a more professional camera, was to look at the scene, determine what's the most important there, determine if its in the highlights or shadows, and make sure you don't over or under expose in the histogram. If you are shooting a bride with white dress, underexposing the dark wall in the background is no big deal, clipping the white of the dress however is. and indeed, with a black cat it would be the other way around.
Also the advice was to not push it all the way to the limits, as the sensor usually resolves less detail towards the outer edges of the histogram.
As ever, you are indispensable to the photography community. Clarity, expertise, humanity, realism and an utter lack of pomposity. Thanks!
Dunno if you've mentioned this before, but shooting a bit in B&W will give folks some experience with seeing tonality.
+Omesh Singh yep many times
He has! lol
I love to shoot B&W sometimes. I think it helps me find interesting lighting.
Omesh Singh oh good idea
Exceptional work, thanks for this info.
This is the nudge I needed to simply start paying attention to the histogram and to start getting a feel for the relationship between it and the shot I've taken.
Judging by what you've said in this (and the previous video), I will NOT be using the histogram to decide on my exposure. I'll be deciding the exposure myself and then looking at the histogram so I know what to expect in situations where I can't trust my LCD (bright sunny days).
Thanks again for this video Matt. You've become an absolutely invaluable resource when it comes to photography.
Agreed. I dont use it very often -only due to me not knowing what it's for..or how to use it.
Fuji camera's also show the JPG histogram, that's why you can overexpose on it slightly and still be fine to recover those highlights in RAW processing
Probably the best nine minutes of basic histogram learning i have had. Cheers Matt
RED cameras have solved the RAW exposure problem with their histogram display, making it super easy to get perfect RAW exposure. First there are two “goal posts”.
The left goal post bar shows the amount of pixels (up to 25% of the total image) that are underexposed or noisy. So when your left goal post fills to the top, then at least 25% of the RAW image is going to be noisy.
The right goal post shows the amount of pixels (up to 25%) that are overexposed or clipped.
Then there are traffic lights (red, green and blue) that light up to indicate which color channels are overexposed and clipped.
So assuming you don’t want to overexpose anything on the RED, just adjust your iris, shutter or ND until all the traffic lights just turn off. And you’ve also maximized the dynamic range because the brightest part of your scene is just below clipping.
Note that on the RED camera, the actual RGB histogram between the goal posts is affected by metadata settings like ISO and white balance, so don’t rely on it to avoid clipping or noise. Use the traffic lights and goal posts to properly expose RAW on RED.
Also remember that newer RED cameras have 17+ stops of dynamic range, so unless your scene has more dynamic range than can be captured by its sensor your left and right goal posts should never fill up. Every dark and bright part in the scene will be recorded by the sensor.
Best video about histograms on TH-cam!! Everyone else just repeats the standard make sure you have blacks and whites stuff.
@2:30 - I couldn't resist "If it's going to be a Low Key kind of shot." Here's the funny: Loki is the name of Matt's cat! Ha! I love homonyms! They are some of my favorite words.
BTW - thanks for (once again?) explaining/teaching us about the histogram. You are so right: it all depends on the sort of shot you are aiming for Low Key, Mid Key, High Key, etc.
*Thank you for enlightening* me on the on camera Histogram vs the on computer Histogram. What a difference! I didn't know that cameras only show the Histogram of the JPEG file - that kinda sucks - not very accurate for me since I always shoot in RAW.
not sure if you are onto it or not, but that is precisely why I called my (female) cat Loki :)
LOL. I didn't know that. Very cool!
Am new to photography and your tutorials have really made my work stand out. Thank you sir
Good information Matt. I don't think I'd seen that before a bout the difference in the jpeg and raw histogram. A subtle but important difference.
You are the one that's walking me through my photography. Educating, clarifying and explaining everything :) Thank You Matt
I liked that you made that very important point about the need to map what your scene is with what the histogram shows. There is big misconception about histogram. Almost everyone says that all you need is histogram to get perfect picture, which is not true. All you need is sense of what your scene is and how perfect histogram would look like for it and then you must map that imaginary histogram with the one on the camera. All that process is not very occurate because it involves a lot of guessing. In many cases it work just ok, but for the best result one still needs to rely on other tools.
super well explained! Thank you. Ive been shooting for about two years and only used the histogram a few times. Now that i want to get serious with my shooting, i see the importance.
Nikon's WRGB histogram display in the DSLR's still image review mode can be used to find blown out hot spots in individual color channels. When you zoom into a review image, the WRGB histograms are dynamically revised to show the color content of the visibly magnified area of the image. To make these JPEG histograms more closely reflect the underlying RGB color channels of the RAW image, I shoot RAW using the Portrait profile and the Cloudy White Balance setting. This produces JPEG's with a fairly flat highlight tone curve at a color temperature near daylight. Each of the four vertical sections of the histogram represents about two-stops of exposure (though the left-most section actually contains all stops below the top six stops).
This is the best explanation of the histogram that I have ever come across. Very informative. Thanks Matt.
from all review and tips I saw before, regardless from who, yours review and tips are the most relevant and I able to understand it without blowing my head. thanks a lot for the information.
You could also add that adjusting the picture profile (even if you shoot raw) to have a flatter image will in fact produce a back screen histogram that is more in line with the histogram of the raw file. This give me more confidence when i'm shooting.
To Phil Weatherly: most cameras have a way of setting a “style” for your JPEG pictures. You can choose warm or cool, edgy or soft, etc. These transformations change the JPEG histogram, perhaps by a lot. Current cameras have a “feature” that they show you the stylized JPEG histogram even if you are recording just raw images. Bummer, but that’s the way it is. To minimize the discrepancy when you are shooting raw, choose the JPEG style that makes the pictures look like your raw images do when you first import them and before you have adjusted color balance, contrast, sharpness, clarity, vibrancy, etc.
Well done Matt! Was not aware of the difference between in-camera histogram readings of RAW files versus those in post-production software. This revelation alone was worth watching your video. Thanks!
New to photography and therefore watching a lot of video on various subjects.
I came across yours on Histograms and makes total sense as compared to a number of others I’ve viewed.
Subscribed 👍
Just stumbled on to your Chanel. What a clear explanation of a (supposedly) difficult topic. Also impressed by the quality of the responses. Chalk yourself up another subscriber.
Finally, someone who's highlighting the issue with jpeg histograms, thank you! I've been so frustrated with manufacturers simply not providing correct histograms, and I don't know if it's a processing thing or an ignorance thing, but it's crazy they're providing histograms that aren't accurate and there's never been any incentive for them to change it because most people simply have no idea. All I want is the ability to accurately understand my exposure in camera, but it seems that's too much to ask!?
I asked the Hasselblad rep at Photokina 2016 whether the new X1D would have a true RAW histogram and he seemed to think it's obvious it would, but he also had no clue that nobody else has accurate histograms so I was left wondering if he just had no idea and was straight-up guessing. Is it that camera manufacturers just don't know what they're doing when it comes to firmware (hence the need for third-party solutions like Magic Lantern)?
Is it lying so much as protecting people from themselves? It seems like it would make sense to give a bit of safety or wiggle room on either end so that if you do use the histogram to push your exposure to the edge, you're not immediately running into brick walls and blowing or blacking out your shots.
If people realized that if your histogram touches the edge, you're already clipping, people would be afraid to get close to the edge and end up under/over exposing all their shots out of paranoia. If you want to maximize that wiggle room to squeeze the most out, that's great, but for most people having that space is probably a major benefit.
This makes absolutely zero sense. It's like making a multimeter that always overestimates voltage just to be safe, or a ruler that always shows longer lengths. It's a tool, it's supposed to measure, not give you "wiggle room". In any case, how would they possibly know whether you'd be better off overexposing vs underexposing? Even if it was a valid argument, why would they not have the option to provide an accurate measurement? I'd put this down to ignorance/incompetence rather than conscious decision any day, or there may be a real technical reason for it that isn't obvious.
I shot video for 2 years on the Sony a7S. My experience (as well as others I spoke with) was that even when shooting dark scenes, it was better to overexpose a bit (without peaking) - similar to the "expose to the right" strategy. Having that "healthy histogram" represented the fact that that you're spreading out the data into more "buckets" so that there's more information in the shot. This was important because the video files are only 8-bit, and also not RAW, so if you put all of the information into just a couple stops of the dynamic range, there's just not much useful data there to work with. Maybe if it's black on black on black, it doesn't matter, but I found that in the real world, even for dark/low key scenes, my video looked much, much better when I gathered as much data as possible, and adjusted (darker or lighter) later.
thank you so much for your explanation. I'm newbie in photography world and some articles suggested me to aiming for the perfect histogram. I'm happy to hear that such thing like a perfect histogram doesn't exist :-)
Great bit of advice. Didn't know that about screen's histogram was representative of a jpeg not RAW. Explains why my RAW histogram is much different in LR. Like a whole stop difference.
Best video out there about this topic, there is a lot of misleading information about it, specially in low light and special situations
The only pictures that I delete in the camera. Are the obvious out of focus and obvious pics I didn't want. Like when I take a picture of the ground, sky or something that I didn't care about. Everything else gets uploaded to a larger screen for me to look at.
Robert Steich I'm the same.
Robert Steich Deleting individual shots can slow down your memory card, best leave everything on there until you come to upload.
Andrew Ness thanks for the advice
Good to know!
I don't delete anything, the more I play with the camera menus the more the battery drains, it's better to delete on the computer latter.
Very helpful reminder, well stated and clear. Really like the suggestion to run tests of the histogram with your camera & lens set up. Helpful to remember to learn the different look of the histogram for realistic as compared to a different desired aesthetic.
Many thanks
Thanks mate. Very helpful videos. Probably the best tutorials I've seen in a long while.
If you use magic lantern for a supported Canon camera, you can get raw histograms if you really need them
Thank you. A lot of great information especially about the RAW histogram.
I found your video on histogram very informative and easy to understand. Thank you
really great explanation! no other video i've seen on histograms has address the issues about photos not all having the same histogram graph style or aiming for the histogram to be a wavy form. i also thought that doesn't make sense if the photo is naturally darker or lighter due to whats being photographed.
the key here is to get a sense of what you thinknthe histogram should loom like based upon what you're photographing and knowing how to look at the histogram to tell you if you are getting too much light in or not enough.
i didn't know that about the raw images. thanks... just subbed for that!
Just what I had issues with. Thank you for clarifying my concerns regarding your last two tips.
Thanks Matt great video, if you feel you have blown out your photo either end of the histogram please don't delete them until you have seen them in Lightroom or your photo developing software. You could have some keepers. With SD cards at the lowest prices I have seen in a long time and getting bigger you should have enough room not to have to delete. Hope that little bit helps beginners and enthusiasts.
Great vid. I figured out the JPG histogram thing myself and found setting the "flattest" JPG picture profile makes the one displayed on the camera closer to the RAW. In my case with my Fuji X cameras I use "Pro-Neg Standard" with highlights and shadows set to -2 for maximum recovery.
Of course, this can make for an unexciting JPG but the Pro-Neg files actually edit rather nicely if you decide to use the JPG -- at least for the crap that I shoot, lol.
This is very helpful. Very detailed and finally an explanation about histograms that makes sense. Thanks Matt :)
From my experience when the histogram goes to the highlight area there is more damage than when it goes to the black.
Overexposed photos are completely destroyed. Underexposed may have a change to survive with a little more noise and far less dynamic range.
I usually use exposure compensation and I try my histogram to touch very little the white highlight side because that gives greater dynamic range without blow out results.
When the histogram goes to the left dark side there is more safety but mediocre results.
Histogram needs balance and a little risk in extreme conditions like outdoor night photography, or landscape with snow. Then the rules of histogram can be ignored for better results.
Very useful info there. I did not know the histogram was the jpeg one. Thanks Matt
Fantastic. I've been searching and I've finally found the info and questions I've been trying to find. THANK YOU.
Thanks for that Matt, very informatinve regarding the RAW histogram in Lightroom and the camera Histogram...
Great explanations with lots of examples! I didn’t know that the histograms in my camera would be for JPEG files only. Learned a lot from you today. Thx
Yeah I see this a lot where people will say that a histogram that's shape like a symmetrical mountain (or mound, or bell) is the "ideal" histogram. I think the biggest key points I've found is don't clip the highlights (so no spikes on the right) and don't clip the blacks/shadows (so no spiles on the left either). One needs to take into consideration (and think about) what they're shooting. For example, if you're shooting snow, you're histogram is likely to be more biased to the right due to the whites and highlights in the image. This doesn't mean the exposure is bad, it just means theres more bright / highlight areas than dark areas for example. I'd say if you're still new to the idea of the histogram, then if all else fails turn on the "blinkies" or highlight warning. I keep mine on anyway (even though I'm experience I just like to have that extra insurance that I can quickly look at a preview and see if something might be blown out or not and not have to look at the histogram so much and trying to figure it out--even though I can interpret the histogram--it's just faster in some cases to use highlight warnings).
T-stops (or transmission) is one thing that I think many people aren't aware of forget when shooting. I know I have. And for example, I had a lens that would consistently under expose even though the camera said that the exposure was correct for the metering mode and scene, but I later realized that I usually had to purposely overexpose by about 1/3 of a stop to get an actaul "proper" exposure as to what I saw with my eyes versus what the camera said was a correct exposure. And to find this, it takes time to learn your lens and realize if you have to make minor adjustments (when shooting) to compensate for light transmission loss (which I think is more common the longer the focal length).
Hi Matt, what about Expose to the right? That's my rule of thumb, as I use my camera to capture data as opposed to a picture. The picture is done is LR afterwards, with cleaner blacks. Felix
Red cameras show RAW histogram along with two "goal posts" which show the percentage of the sensor's pixels that are noise (blacks) or clipped (highlights)
This is absolutely AWESOME information and presentation!! Thank you!!
just had to comment on you Playlist for this very informative video. love it!
Histograms in camera based on JPG file - amazing. Very good to know. Surprised this is the case.
The fuss about the histogram showing the JPG preview histo is a bit overblown as one can see this as a safety feature. The bottom line is that if the relevant tones are inside the limits you can adjust in post as needed. If you are a JPG shooter then the auto exposure is most likely pretty good anyway. If you really want to get fussy, learn to meter.
Excellent information...explained very clearly! Thanks.
Well done Matt! Very easy to understand.
It took me a while to figure out the way to get correct exposure. It is in part a mindset. Cameras think they're looking at an average scene because this is what they've been told. The exposure meters in our cameras, as you would know have been told (programmed) that they will always be looking at an average scene (18% gray) which is of course a landscape. The way I set exposure now is to look at the cameras exposure and make a judgment. So if the subject is back lit I know the camera will underexpose by a stop or so and I adjust accordingly. If I take the shot of the black cat on a black rug I know that the camera thinks its looking at an underexposed average scene (a landscape) and it will overexpose the scene by a stop or so and I wind it down a stop or so. An excellent example of the camera underexposing the subject is camera two in your video. The brightness of the window forces auto-exposure to underexpose you. It thinks its looking at a typical landscape at midday.The histogram from this camera would show a lump at either extreme.
Have been following you for a while Matt and enjoy you're posts. Keep up the good work. Good luck with the move to the big apple. What a time to be there. Welcome to Trumpland.
Matt do you ever look at the color histogram on the back of the camera. Sometimes if you are taking images of something of one dominate color like a bunch of red flowers the red channel can get totally blown out and lose detail while the regular histogram isn't showing the overall exposure getting blown out.
You can see this after taking the shot and viewing the histogram in channels. The pre histogram is a combined view so you cannot see blown reds (and yellows in sunsets). So if you have major reds or yellows in the shot take the histogram with a little more room on the highlight side. I take my landscapes with the histogram to the right but not touching and adjust the shot back to what I saw in post. By shooting to the right with the histogram you keep all your highlights and preserve more shadow detail. Now you can make everything work but it does take some post processing work and syc all the shots to those adjustments so you only make rough exposure adjustments once (so it's not all that time consuming). Some photographers just expose to the subject with people subjects and that's fine but for a fantastic landscape, shoot your histogram to the right and keep everything!
Best Histogram Video So Far.
THE most reliable for 95% cases is a good EVF. You see tonality, clipping, colors etc. And you do it immediately as you see it directly.
Histograms are based to JPEG as well instead RAW, so you can't really trust them so well. That's reason why you need to convert raw in camera to JPEG with clipping removed so JPEG can show the data.
The histogram is important for situations where you are adjusting multi-spectrum lights like UV and mixed lights as you can easily separate Bayer sensor limits that way when doing long time critical studio product photography.
Even for playbacks EVF wins as you see all in direct sunlight instead need to chimp LCD at rear.
paristo Absolutely. I love the EVF, so much simpler and more useful, only use the screen to show shots to clients really.
Thanks for noting the in camera RAW/JPEG histogram thing.
Awesome info! I didn't know that about the in-camera histogram being based on a jpeg conversion. I'll definitely take that into account when shooting more creatively now. BTW Welcome to the states! I hope you love living in NYC!
I'm sure Matt knows far more than me about most, if not all aspects of photography, but I never ever look at the histogram, and don't have it enabled. I only shoot in RAW and edit in Lightroom. Of course we all try to "get it right in the camera", but if out doing wildlife or sports photography, you can't check the histogram after every shot. You have to capture the moment, making adjustments in processing...... Different of course if you are in a studio where the lighting is consistent.
Brilliant. Awesome explanation.
Clarified.
It's good that you are correcting miss information. Could you use your platform to correct '0' = proper exposure & 'the meter get's it wrong' both are phrases that totally confuse beginners...to a point they may just put their cameras back in the cupboard & give up.
A Lo-ki shot. Beautiful punnage!
ah... yeah. That is why I named her Loki (Low Key)
Here I was thinking you were a fan of Thor..
very useful tutorial. Thank you very much and greeting from Sri Lanka
People seem to be treating this video as telling you hard fast rules you need to follow when I think Matt's whole point is that the in camera histogram is limited in what it shows you.
It's a good tool to give you an idea what's going on but don't trust it as your end all be all for your shot. Just understand what it's telling you and what it's not able to tell you. Especially if you do a lot of work in post (you should) knowing where your histogram is gives you an idea what you'll have to work with later when you get home.
In dark settings I'll purposely underexpose slightly on my Canon M50 as I've noticed that the histogram may show "perfect black" and "perfect white" but the picture is often much too "bright" for the light in the setting.
For example, at night I don't want the picture to look lighter than it really was.
Very good and informative video. Thanks.
When shooting in Raw, I set the camera to color space Adobe RGB to reduce in camera highlight clipping.
that second camera, that is a very large light ratio difference. Awesome video
Would be nice if you provided a link to the other video you said to check out.
always good to remind about, my syster has photography lessons at school and all of these misstakes were in her sylabus... Had to explain her about it but still she will have to answer the exams according to the misstakes of the teacher... (sorry for average english)
Ideal histogram - no such thing. Thank you, sir.
excellent points about histogram misconceptions. thanks
Nice light, thanks for sharing
Excellent tutorial. Spot on.
Amazing video Mat thanks! Very important info.
I think one of the reasons most cameras don't have a histogram based on RAW is because you can still recover highlights when only one channel (for example red) is blown out. But how well that works really depends on the software you're using. One camera that does feature RAW histograms is the Leica Monochrom because it's black & white only so you don't depend on how some software interprets the RAW data.
Excellent advice for new photographers Matt.
Thanks Matt...will have to try and make more time to study histograms. I often use the histogram 'after' the shot, rather than while shooting as I use the meter or exposure compensation as needed via the meter. I'd like to know if a person can use the histogram for actually 'choosing' one, or all your camera settings for a shot?
when I shoot something with a lot of dynamic range, I put my picture style to neutral, which I have adjusted to have very low constrast. that way, it looks very similar to the raw file I will open at home :)
I looked on my Ciroflex TLR and couldn't find the histogram. I thought maybe it was on a more modern camera so I looked on the newest camera I have my Minolta X G 9 and it didn't have one either. As a subscriber I really enjoy your videos and learn a lot even if sometimes I don't understand a word you're saying. by the way welcome to the US. 😁
Great tip about JPEG vs RAW histogram. I hadn’t heard that before.
my mom had to have a histogram when she was in her early twenties, tragic
Did not know that about the histogram on the back of the camera not being accurate for the extreme highlights & shadows, due to being based on Jpeg preview, compared with the RAW image I import into the computer.
There is one "stills" camera that will show you a histogram of raw - Red cameras like the Epic, Weapon, etc. Granted, they are mainly used for motion, but the "S" in DSMC is for Stills and there is a whole community of Red users that shoot stills,, which on the newest cameras are 35MP images with amazing dynamic range.
Hey Matt, great video. you need a second camera zoomed in on your face about 20 degrees off the main camera for those points where you want more engagement in what your saying. the wide angle gopro side on showing darkness i found off putting and disengaging. thats just my opinion though and not gospel. again great content but the side on gopro cuts were a bit jarring and disengaging. but again great content
wow didn't know this. You never stop learning
.
Great info but the backlit subject on the B camera was bothering the hell out of me. That's like watching someone burn food in a cooking tutorial video. BUT...great info!
Exposed to the right for a cleaner image, then bring it back down to your desired exposure in post.
Wow! You and Tony Northrup are saying the complete opposite about whether it's better to overexpose vs underexpose for post processing adjustments. Tony is saying the highlight section of the Histogram is cleaner and therefore can be easily adjusted down. you are saying its better to underexpose because there's more data to work with.
I would have also liked some explanation about the color elements in a comprehensive histogram. However, I enjoyed the video!
Thanks, Matt, particularly for the info on in-camera histograms being for JPEGS only. As so many photographers shoot raw+JPEG or raw only, why don't manufacturers include raw histograms? I suppose it you knew you would have told us!
By the way, do you think you could turn the radio off during your next video? There was an annoying background noise in this one.
Hi Matt, please can you explain about Exposure To The Right? Do you do this (or recommend it) and pull the image back down in post? Thank you.
I don’t. I either expose for the most important part of the scene, or for the shadows.
@@mattgranger Thank you for your reply.
Great tip about the raw/jpeg histogram.. Why don't they show the raw histogram instead? Is it because some editors have different levels of raw processing capabilities? Or is it just because it's a jpeg that's displayed on the screen at the time? Can any DSLR's even show the proper full raw image on a camera screen?
Very nice. Thank you for sharing.
Magic Lantern (a software add-on for some Canon DSLRs) can display RAW histogram.
Could have needed that information about the jpeg histogram at the weekend...would had saved me some headache as to what my camera wants from me ;) Was surprised that some shots where way better manageable in terms of high and low pixel information then the camera told me there is.
Thank you Sir. Very insightful!