Did I?
If I interpret the histogram off your screenshot correctly (don’t know this program), I could have exposed around 0,5 EV longer (exposed further to the right) until green channel is clipped. darktable says that red is clipping earlier and there is just 0.2 EV until clipping.
RawDigger only provides raw histograms. The histogram you provided in rebuttal is not showing raw data and therefore is not showing the degree of sensor under-exposure which is considerable in your .cr3 file.
In sensor terms, you exposed to the left.
His exposure was correct in my opinion. Not everyone carries a laptop around to analyze raw histograms of every shot they take. It’s easy now from the confort of your home to say, maybe 0.5ev more was still good. The risk of blowing the green channel is there and there is little reward by exposing a hair more. I would use the same exposure he used with maybe a different iso (I’m not familiar with this camera).
He didn’t say that I should have exposed 0,5 EV longer but:
You don’t have as much room as the raw digger histogram would imply…you were pretty close with green… the raw white point for your file is… 10852 or at least that is the one that DT uses…
And your green is pretty close to that…
Here’s your raw file opened in RawDigger with no trickery - definitely not ETTR.
The “bright” cloud is only 75% lightness and the overall image is indeed “pretty dark”!
RawDigger does nothing but convert the raw to RGB using LibRaw, unlike your converter which seems to have done much, much more.
Can we stop please? Both @Popanz and @anon8280290
No problem. Sorry!
OK
Some might find this helpful when discussing files in Play Raw:
Out of interest, I bought it for a buck or two and compared it’s RAW histogram with that of RawDigger (same software supplier).
FastRawViewer:
UnderExposure detection on; 0EV = middle gray says the manual
RawDigger with 0 EV set to 18% of saturation (16383) not the white level.
Posted for information only not making any points.
Thanks!
Just for kicks I sometimes try the basecurve…now that its placed at the end of the pipeline you can often get some nice results…here I just added and changed color preservation to no and applied the fusion at the max 3 iterations… the only other modules were RGB CB using the vibrant preset and a small tweak to the sky using local contrat… actually to me a fairly pleasing result… relative and perceptual versions …
20240303-1244-8321 (1)_01.cr3.xmp (14.7 KB)
Indeed, that works astonishingly very well. You haven’t changed anything on the white balance?
No not at all…
EDIT,
Technically no but it is just as shot legacy white balance… CC was disabled… I had been working on a duplicate of your image and I had disabled everything pretty much just to see where it sat, so no tonemapper not exposure bump and no CC…I could go back and throw it on to see what it might do…
EDIT2:
Changing WB to scene defaults you can see the waveform go up a bit but it doesn’t impact the overall look to any extent that I could discern…
20240303-1244-8321.cr3.xmp (14.8 KB)
With no processing other than resizing, this is an imagemagick conversion of the raw to jpg. In terms of overall luminance, it is pretty close to my edits. Of course, the exposure level was taken directly from the originally exposed raw file. Sometimes, I do this as a sanity check.
@lphilpot I suspect your edit is approaching the look of the scene as seen by the eye more than the edits done by myself or Uli. That is not saying your approach is better or worst as photography is an art form and the editing process is the final expression of the artistic process. I was heavily influenced by the original posted edit and wonder if I would have created the look I did here if I hadn’t already seen Uli’s version. I suspect I would have created a version more like yours. Well done.
We live and learn - I didn’t know that imagemagick does raw conversion - thanks.