The manual that came with my wife's D-Lux3 explicitly stated that one should not expect the on-camera histogram to agree with a histogram in any post-processing software. To ease the processing load, I would guess that the on-camera histogram is a rough approximation taken by extrapolation from a few sampled pixels strategically spotted around the sensor coverage. This is a familiar strategy to me - I sometimes ease processing load by providing opinions that are a rough approximation based on extrapolation from a few data points.
stan On Jun 17, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Bob W wrote: > A Royal Navy carrier (Ark Royal, according to the sailors' hats) is in > Greenwich today, so I decided to take a picture of it. It's a rather > uninteresting picture, but given the very grey tonality I thought I'd > play around with exposing to the right to see what difference it made > in Lightroom when I applied a tone curve. I first made an exposure on > auto with no compensation, and looked at the histogram. I then dialled > in various amounts of over-exposure to move it to the right until the > histogram fell off the edge. > > To my surprise, when I look at the pictures in Lightroom the histogram > is significantly further to the right than it is on the camera's > display. So the exposure that was right up against the edge in the > camera, has fallen over it in Lightroom. Is this normal? Have other > people seen the same thing with their cameras? > > Here is a photo that was over to the right, but not quite at the far > end. About +1.5 stops, I think. > http://www.web-options.com/Carrier/content/_6175495_large.html > > Architectural note: you can see the dome of St. Paul's towards the > bottom right - it's about 5 miles away. > > Regards > Bob > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
