Beginner Histogram importance?

I think the histogram is a very useful tool for landscapes in particular.. it's the only effective way of determining whether you're capturing the light that you're seeing, certainly don't rely on the cameras LCD screen - it's uncalibrated and you can adjust it's brightness/contrast and the ambient light affects how it looks to the eye.

Simon
 
simonkit said:
I think the histogram is a very useful tool for landscapes in particular.. it's the only effective way of determining whether you're capturing the light that you're seeing, certainly don't rely on the cameras LCD screen - it's uncalibrated and you can adjust it's brightness/contrast and the ambient light affects how it looks to the eye.

Simon
Click to expand...

Interesting from another landscaper - totally disagree too :D

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Interesting from another landscaper - totally disagree too :D

Dave
Click to expand...

Great thing about photography, lots of tools and methods to use.. ultimately it doesn't matter a jot which ones you choose as long as your happy with your end result.. for me the histogram provides valuable feedback, the binkies too, that's not to say I sometimes choose to completely ignore it I definitely do but I find that the more I use it the more I understand what it's telling me relative to the scene I'm shooting and the more it becomes 2nd nature knowing when to react to it. I find most of the time I don't need the blinkies as I instinctively know from the histogram.. but as I said, both work, just choose which one you prefer

Simon
 
Thatchapthere said:
Hey guys,

Have found the plethora of info on here valuable, which I've been applying/experimenting/failing/passing etc....Ta!

Though, with all the different variations of application, histogram has now entered into the conundrum!

Is this an important aspect, on top of everything else?
Click to expand...

Yep. Very.

Learn it - its important to understand what it is and how it can help you.
 
Always look at the histogram in camera after the first shot then every few shots - use it to tweak the settings

One of the first things that I look at when downloading the images into LR and PP - a comparison of the image with the histogram

I find it very useful
 
Thanks for the replies! Been out today in this lovely light shooting - I've found that, when a shot has clipped at either end, I already know this by reading the LCD rather than the graph.

Though I understand that the Histogram comes into itself with landscape, especially re over-exposure....lots of my landscape shots required particular attention that would be aided with reading the graph aforehand.
 
Thatchapthere said:
Though I understand that the Histogram comes into itself with landscape, especially re over-exposure
Click to expand...

Then you haven't understood what some of us were saying at all :(

Of all the ways I've considered using histograms in the past Landscape photography has to be the LEAST useful application of histograms

However you do it, if you get your exposures right then no-one cares what you do :)

Have fun

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Then you haven't understood what some of us were saying at all :(

Of all the ways I've considered using histograms in the past Landscape photography has to be the LEAST useful application of histograms

However you do it, if you get your exposures right then no-one cares what you do :)

Have fun

Dave
Click to expand...
Hah, maybe you're right. One thing I'm learning is, YOU control your camera; manipulate accordingly and override what the camera thinks is right for optimum yum yum.
 
Thatchapthere said:
Hah, maybe you're right. One thing I'm learning is, YOU control your camera; manipulate accordingly and override what the camera thinks is right for optimum yum yum.
Click to expand...

Yup :)

You need to learn how your camera records things by comparison & practice. the comment someone said about the screen at the back not being 'correct' is of course true, but you soon learn what 'correct' is and hence work that into how you use it. This is how we oldies used to learn the characteristics of film too, trial, error and learning, its really not different in the digital age other than it being MUCH quicker now

Dave
 
I rarely use the histogram, except in extreme lighting conditions to make sure there's no blown highlights or lost shadows. However, I have now done two free studio shoots with pros who both advised the use of the histogram and say that they always use it, and say the histogram is far more reliable than the image on the LCD.
 
snerkler said:
However, I have now done two free studio shoots with pros who both advised the use of the histogram and say that they always use it, and say the histogram is far more reliable than the image on the LCD
Click to expand...

In a studio where you are in total control of the lighting there should never be anything blown that you didn't want to be blown, and vice versa, a histogram might tells you something is blown/blocked up but not where, so its of limited use. A flashmeter will sort the exposure and lighting ratios for you added to knowledge & experience. One of my best mates is a great studio/portrait Pro and trainer and I can't recall him ever bothering with the histogram either. I've also attended studio days with some of the UK's best and neither of them mentioned histograms at all

Don't confuse "Pro' with someone knowing what they are talking about or meaning they are right - I'm a long term Pro too and I could also be talking gonads :D

Looks like the OP's question has been answered fully now, if not that clearly as there's obviously several ways of working, all that matters is the result not the way you get the result :)

So - I'm out :wave:

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
In a studio where you are in total control of the lighting there should never be anything blown that you didn't want to be blown, and vice versa, a histogram might tells you something is blown/blocked up but not where, so its of limited use. A flashmeter will sort the exposure and lighting ratios for you added to knowledge & experience. One of my best mates is a great studio/portrait Pro and trainer and I can't recall him ever bothering with the histogram either. I've also attended studio days with some of the UK's best and neither of them mentioned histograms at all

Don't confuse "Pro' with someone knowing what they are talking about or meaning they are right - I'm a long term Pro too and I could also be talking gonads :D

Looks like the OP's question has been answered fully now, if not that clearly as there's obviously several ways of working, all that matters is the result not the way you get the result :)

So - I'm out :wave:

Dave
Click to expand...
True. One of the guys is a well known pro though, and a good one. They did both just check the initial exposure though to make sure everything was as it should have been. But at the end of the day there's no right or wrong workflow as long as you consistently get the results that you want that's all that matters (y)
 
DG Phototraining said:
In a studio where you are in total control of the lighting there should never be anything blown that you didn't want to be blown, and vice versa, a histogram might tells you something is blown/blocked up but not where, so its of limited use. A flashmeter will sort the exposure and lighting ratios for you added to knowledge & experience. One of my best mates is a great studio/portrait Pro and trainer and I can't recall him ever bothering with the histogram either. I've also attended studio days with some of the UK's best and neither of them mentioned histograms at all

Don't confuse "Pro' with someone knowing what they are talking about or meaning they are right - I'm a long term Pro too and I could also be talking gonads :D

Looks like the OP's question has been answered fully now, if not that clearly as there's obviously several ways of working, all that matters is the result not the way you get the result :)

So - I'm out :wave:

Dave
Click to expand...

I'm not a pro and can talk gonads with the best of them :)
I do like a lightmeter though, much more reliable than histogram / blinkies / whatever, whether using flash or not... so long as you hold it in the right place, pointing in the right direction.
 
juggler said:
so long as you hold it in the right place, pointing in the right direction.
Click to expand...

And there's a long & boring argument about where that is too !!!

I've had a flashmeter that clearly underexposed too, a couple of my pals tried it and agreed as it gave different readings to theirs

The ONLY important thing is - whatever works for you is the right thing for you :)

Dave

PS - not only Pros can talk gonads for Britain ;)
 
DG Phototraining said:
And there's a long & boring argument about where that is too !!!
Click to expand...

Isn't there just?

DG Phototraining said:
I've had a flashmeter that clearly underexposed too, a couple of my pals tried it and agreed as it gave different readings to theirs
Click to expand...

Just in case someone stumbles across this in the future and hasn't lost the will to live by this point.. it's good practice to calibrate your lightmeter to your camera and workflow. There's another long and boring argument about how exactly to do that ;)
 
ST4 said:
For digital users
Click to expand...

If film users can manage to get a good exposure without a histogram then so can digital users by using the same methods. You do have to be a bit more careful not to blow out the highlights with digital's lower dynamic range - and a histogram can help with that, but it's not essential.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
If film users can manage to get a good exposure without a histogram then so can digital users by using the same methods. You do have to be a bit more careful not to blow out the highlights with digital's lower dynamic range - and a histogram can help with that, but it's not essential.


Steve.
Click to expand...

They help you with techniques such as Ettr. I wouldn't be without them
 
Steve Smith said:
If film users can manage to get a good exposure without a histogram then so can digital users by using the same methods. You do have to be a bit more careful not to blow out the highlights with digital's lower dynamic range - and a histogram can help with that, but it's not essential.


Steve.
Click to expand...
Agreed, it's just another tool to help. I do find it quite useful though.
 
Doesn't it depend on what type of image you are taking - a boring old landscape, it's just point and shoot, so no need, .............. BUT a bird or wildlife image which needs far more technical skill and creativity, then it's an aid
 
BillN_33 said:
Doesn't it depend on what type of image you are taking - a boring old landscape, it's just point and shoot, so no need, .............. BUT a bird or wildlife image which needs far more technical skill and creativity, then it's an aid
Click to expand...

Is that a slightly biased answer?!


Steve.
 
Having learned how to get things right long before histograms existed, I find that I rarely use them, although I do have my cameras set to show blinkies on review (although I generally have them set to not show instant reviews - makes the batteries last longer apart from anything else!) If I'm in doubt as to the exact exposure, I'll use the bracketing mode (usually set to 1/2 stop increments) which pretty much guarantees at least one "perfect" exposure as well as capturing the same lighting conditions across all the frames. Click, check histogram, oops, light's changed...
 
As I use an EVF the histogram is extremely useful to me. I can see if I'm blowing the highlights before I even press the shutter.
 
To all those who swear by histograms...

Have you checked to see how much they lie to you? Some are worse than others (my D800 was terrible, my D4 not too bad).
Do you use all R/G/B/L histograms? They're different animals and they *may* say different things.
Do you use UniWB?
Have you set your camera jpeg settings so the histograms lie less?

I've gone down that route and done all of those things... in the end I decided they just aren't worth caring that much about. I just set my jpeg settings "flat" so they kind of resemble the raw image (w/ default develop settings) and I'll occasionally look at a review image. I do have "blinkies" enabled, but I seldom look at those either.

But TBF, most of what I shoot I don't get a second chance at; and the next shot will probably be different... so I've either got it or not, and there's not much to do about it.
 
Considering that the raw file is so important in post processing, you would think that Adobe would have a grip on it.
The problem I've found with a histogram is that it depends on which software it is being produced.
For example, if a raw file is opened in Adobe camera raw, and also opened in FastRaw viewer, they are often different.
I noticed this when I got my Fuji X-Pro1. Raws are not handled well by ACR, but FastRaw viewer handles and renders them much better.
This also means that the histogram is often very different from the back of the camera and when you view it in PP software.
So I use blinkies when shooting, FastRaw to sort/cull them, then import to LR.
 
It still appears to me that almost every histogram user here, uses it just for over and under exposure information. And middle of the histogram is uninteresting.
 
Last edited:
Yes, different cameras and processing regimes will show things slightly differently. If you're using ETTR Expose To The Right (of the histogram) technique, then it's vital to know what's what.

Blinkies are the best guide, but they're only a warning of over-exposure, usually quite cautiously set by the camera manufacturer, and in Raw there's always a lot more highlights headroom above the point when blinkies start to flash - like at least one stop, or more.

Very easy to test. Shoot something where the light is constant and adjust exposure so that blinkies just begin to flash, then increase exposure in 1/3rd increments for a couple of stops or so. Then import to your usual software and note the exposure level where over-exposure actually occurs.

ianp5a said:
It still appears to me that almost every histogram user here, uses the ends for over and under exposure information. And middle of the histogram is uninteresting.
Click to expand...

The right-hand side is most useful for sure, the left-hand shadows end is more for 'interest' really as there's not much you can do about it once exposure for best highlights is set. I use the middle quite a lot though, as mid-grey tones are easiest to assess visually (grass, brickwork, some tarmac) so I like to see a big lump there when appropriate.

I use the middle more in post-processing to make sure those tones are pegged where they should be. In Lightroom, the default background tone is mid-grey, dead in the middle of the histogram, so that's another handy visual reference.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top