Do YOU understand your HISTOGRAM??

You can stay up to date with Matts latest work at www.mattgrange... - join the mailing list!
Check out the Nikon Expert Setup Guide: learn.mattgran...
/ _mattgranger
/ mattgranger

[@AZREDFERN]

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.

[@mattgranger]

+AZREDFERN yep, I suggest this in several vids

[@Case_]

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?

[@AZREDFERN]

+Matt Granger That's probably where I heard it then ^u^ They don't teach that in any undergraduate class.

[@AZREDFERN]

+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.

[@Case_]

+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.

[@omeshsingh8592]

Dunno if you've mentioned this before, but shooting a bit in B&W will give folks some experience with seeing tonality.

[@mattgranger]

+Omesh Singh yep many times

[@micahmackenzie]

He has! lol

[@thestig007]

I love to shoot B&W sometimes. I think it helps me find interesting lighting.

[@marywhore1]

Omesh Singh oh good idea

[@DarrenD777]

@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.

[@mattgranger]

not sure if you are onto it or not, but that is precisely why I called my (female) cat Loki :)

[@DarrenD777]

LOL. I didn't know that. Very cool!

[@louisolivierfortin]

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.

[@stuartschaffner9744]

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.

[@RubberWahel]

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)?

[@witeshade]

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.

[@RubberWahel]

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.

[@waynebelfast]

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.

[@gewglesux]

Agreed. I dont use it very often -only due to me not knowing what it's for..or how to use it.

[@Dmitryzakharov]

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.

[@nathanieldrew]

Exceptional work, thanks for this info.

[@danschardein856]

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 👍

[@clarity1092]

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.

[@SandyChase]

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.

[@joseuribe1552]

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.

[@czort123]

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 :-)

[@tectorama]

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.

[@robertsherrow3627]

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!

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

Wow, this information about the camera not showing the histogram of the RAW file is really critical, and I didn't know that before!

[@shifteleven]

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

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

***** That's also a good tip. I'll change my settings right away.

[@josephclaener1003]

Aaron Yang

[@paparazzininja7897]

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.

[@StevenRPictures]

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.

[@gregsaunders7042]

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.

[@janetsers4895]

my mom had to have a histogram when she was in her early twenties, tragic

[@nicholasbyrne522]

Thanks mate. Very helpful videos. Probably the best tutorials I've seen in a long while.

[@windwaker0rules]

that second camera, that is a very large light ratio difference. Awesome video

[@jeffbrislane5782]

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

[@anthonyhazlewood5788]

Thanks for that Matt, very informatinve regarding the RAW histogram in Lightroom and the camera Histogram...

[@arrowbubbles]

Ideal histogram - no such thing. Thank you, sir.

[@AgentReeves]

just had to comment on you Playlist for this very informative video. love it!

[@Ruud_Brouwer]

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 :)

[@toddpeterson5904]

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.

[@DogRox]

Great vid! Makes alot of sense, even to a noob like me! :-)

[@ricklangro9698]

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.

[@jeffgoldberg6022]

I would have also liked some explanation about the color elements in a comprehensive histogram. However, I enjoyed the video!

[@billbliss2500]

Nice job Matt

[@gripps2211]

Would be nice if you provided a link to the other video you said to check out.

[@nespressoman]

Thank you.

[@athirath]

Very well explained. Thank u !!

[@_Just_Some1]

Great stuff Matt. Do something on RGB histograms, how to read them and what to look for. Thanks. 👍🏼

[@mardykidut]

Always wondered how RAW can recover from beyond the camera's histogram.- Great tip

[@keithswindell6212]

Good point to keep in mind, thanks!

[@HilleCine]

Amazing video Mat thanks! Very important info.

[@sosomelodies659]

excellent points about histogram misconceptions. thanks

[@Divineshot]

Awesome video! learned a lot. subscribed! 😊

[@terrywbreedlove]

Excellent

[@Indy_at_the_beach]

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.

[@rocheuro]

Hi great tutorial, :) i have to say i think Magic Lantern Liveview histogram for raw video / photo is based on a RAW data from the sensor :), but that's possibly the only one method and works only with Canon "hacked" firmware , cheers! :)

[@ktodoma]

Great info. Thank you

[@mrf8358]

Wow, this information is priceless, thank you sir!

[@andrecoelho2450]

Love your videos, thank you!

[@dweb823]

Is it just me, or was the exposure of your video slightly shifting darker and lighter throughout your presentation? Can't tell if it was just the natural lighting you seemed to be using or something in the camera you used.

[@wagzbullmax]

Best tips ever! Thanks for sharing.

Thank you Matt, excellent information, very helpful. :)

[@JohnYoungPhotographer]

great info thanks

[@michaelo2l]

Nice one...

[@WinterSkeg]

excellent. thank you

[@gewglesux]

Thanks Matt! This was very informative..

[@SupersaiyaShin]

The Fuji X Line can show the histogram in jpeg and raw ^-^

[@ederjonatanpulidogonzalez470]

I want my money back!!!! for no showing the info from the RAW file... thank you very much for this one Matt!

[@trondhelgehie6771]

💯% correct!👍

[@user-oo8wt3hr1t]

Those hand movements though

[@BillyInnes]

Good information

[@Ezel21love]

Glad I watched this vid

[@akongas]

Thank you. One thing im not sure I understand is: Why doesnt a camera use a raw file for the histogram? why cant it use it? Also, im using a software that only exports to png... is this comparable to a raw?

[@RS-Amsterdam]

Talking about cats , where is Low Key or Loki, back down under ??

[@stilmotionpicture]

ok agreed! great information! what about video tho? same soncept?

[@Yahgiggle]

not a lot of cameras shot raw video, so i guess the ones that do its the same but for the others its not

[@BrennanH]

Cool! Thanks for this video.

[@upsamra]

Very informative, thank you

[@MrKen-wy5dk]

Does it make any difference in the quality of the histogram if the jpeg is small or large? It seems like the more pixels, the better representation one would get in the histogram.

[@MikeSapiecha]

even so called professionals get this wrong … well done

[@shrutipatil469]

Thank u that was very informative. I have just started out making foodstyling n foodphotography videos, I would love to hear ur thoughts on it

[@jonashoferichter]

i'm sure that some digital medium format cams show you the raw histogram, because they don't shoot jpgs

[@armandozertuche4054]

I need some help in trying not to get my histogram to spiked all the way up. I mess with the exposure allot by histogram keeps showing, depending on my highlights or darks are spiked a bit too much.

[@szmulek]

Magic Lantern for Canon cameras shows you RAW histogram in camera

[@mondotv4216]

Not sure you can see a histogram of a RAW file? Magic Lantern may process the RAW and then display a histogram but a RAW image is essentially un-debayered sensor data - so a histogram would not mean much unless processed into RGB.

[@Janet_Airlines802]

I have a 6d would you recommend magic lantern? Can it ruin the camera?

[@analogdesigner-Jay]

mike burns, I've been using ML with my 6D for years. On important images I always check using the RAW histogram. ML can also tell you how many stops you are from clipping.

[@Janet_Airlines802]

I have read that it could ruin your camera. Can that be a possibility?

[@jayphilippbar3726]

Mike, sure, it's possible however several thousands of persons are using it without any problems. I have read of one or two complaints in the past couple of years however I think their cameras were already messed up "broken". It's very important to follow the installation instructions! Make sure that your camera has the correct firmware version before you install ML. I use several of the features that ML has and right now would always own at least one camera capable of using it. I do a lot of macro work so I frequently use the focus stacking feature. Good luck, Jay www.analogdesign.com

[@bamsemh1]

Which Lacie disk is that? 😊

[@ewitte12]

I wouldn't take too long checking that polar bears histogram :D

[@GiannisVeronis]

Hi Matt, is the jpeg histogram display by default in all cameras? If so can I change it to take the raw histogram? Thanks

[@emden09emwede40]

So the ETTR Landscape Photographers Rule should be Nonsense as well?

[@marywhore1]

Ah very good

[@AlfonsoRituerto]

Hi! Do you know if this Jpeg-Raw differences are applyable to video shooting? Because everybody talks about avoiding Histogram while shooting Video. Thank you in advance!

[@20centurymodern]

If the histogram isn't showing a RAW histogram but a JPG and you are shooting RAW only, where is the camera storing the JPG histogram data? Maybe the RAW file is a little larger with embedded JPG data even if you're not shooting RAW+JPG?

[@AnandaSim]

20centurymodern every raw file has an embedded JPEG inside it. The camera uses that JPEG for fastest retrievals to show on the LCD - saves on battery and speed of display. This is regardless of whether you set the camera to shoot only raw

[@slothsarecool]

I can't imagine RAW -> JPG -> Histo being less computationally expensive than RAW -> Histo, but it's simpler to have a single implementation, so that may be the case. Even with a RAW file they could be skipping pixels, to sample a subset.

[@AnandaSim]

It's not Raw -> JPG -> Histo every time. The jpg is created at the same time as raw and embedded in the raw. When a desktop cataloguing program or the camera out in the field wants to display the jpg for display, it fetches the embedded jpg directly. When a histogram needs to be displayed to the end user, the histo is computed from the jpeg directly, There is no raw->jpg conversion each and every time you want to display the histo. There is also one more reason why the camera needs to use the jpg to display the histo......

[@ApertureApex]

A Loki shot 😂😂😂👌

[@anthonypetit7984]

Finally someone else said what I've been thinking …

[@Fabitalism]

What's about ETTR-Methode? Shouldn't try to get the most Information? ...

[@simon_patterson]

Fabitalism ettr is still the best method to get the most out of the camera sensor. This video demonstrates that you can often get a little more latitude at the ends of the histogram than the camera's display might indicate. This can be very useful to know, especially when you're shooting on the fly and have little time to adjust settings in fast changing light.

[@lashknife01]

Was that a low key shot or a Loki shot at 02:31? :)

[@mattgranger]

yyyyes. Do you realise that is why I named her that?

[@lashknife01]

Matt Granger haha, i love it.

[@richardsimmons6470]

When you say the camera looks at the JPG. If you are in RAW only I presume it is converting the RAW to JPG for the HIstogram but not saving it ??

[@johansmolinski]

Your RAW file will actually contain a small JPEG conversion used for quickly rendering thumbnails in your camera and photo editing software.

[@Ethan-pu5lo]

cool...............................

[@cheesun124]

dude you playing mobb deep in the background?

[@IceManCold77]

Thanks for the info. That raw/jpg histogram thing was kind of a shocker. Cameras are liars :( joking ) . PS: nice shiny desk over there, what happened with the one from Sydney? I really liked it. Cheers!

[@moreapropos]

On point 1, I don't think it is "absolute non-sense" to say that photographers should try to capture the widest distribution of tonal values possible for any given scene, that is, a properly exposed shot. And the histogram as well as a waveform monitor are tools for assessing just that. Of course, if you are shooting a black cat by candle light OR a polar bear in the snow, you are not going to have that wide of a tonal distribution but those are the exceptions, not the rule. It seems what you are criticizing is the exception to the idea, but you shouldn't diss the idea itself. After all, what is the histogram for, if not to assess the distribution of tonal values?

[@Reactor10k]

Flying High You've missed the point. The people who show the mountain histogram and talk about evenly distributed tonal values misunderstand what a histogram is for. Also, it's not an exception to have shots with values that don't fill the histogram or lean heavily one way or the other.

[@MFN]

Did you look at the histogram for your side view? Lmao photography joke

[@st08121982]

During the course of video , the exposure is jumping a bit . :/

[@Triplebuc50]

What are Blinkies

[@lylestavast7652]

when you're reviewing the exposure you just made, the camera has a feature where the areas which are "too" bright are noted with blinking white (or another warning color). It helps you know if you have over-exposed (whites are too white to accurately be recorded with some detail remaining) ... I don't ever pay attention to the blacks side, so I don't know if some cameras have a similar feature for grossly under-exposed (black without recording any detail...)

[@NobbyOnline]

Hi Matt, Thanks for claryfying the details of histogram, i often saw this misinterpreted in articles and videos. A little hint for the canon users out there : if you use the magic lantern firmware extension (www.magiclantern.fm) available to some models, you are able to get a histogram based on the raw data.

[@JPS4inLA]

My Gee bag😆

[@peterm2353]

One issue about histograms that bugs me and about which I am very cautious is the constant advice by some to "shoot to the right". This is advised on the basis that this tends to maximize the information captured in the image by any digital sensor. OK I understand that. My problem with it is that out in the field (where I do 90% of my shooting) because there are always some excessively bright elements (sky, clouds, reflections etc) this becomes a prescription for blown highlights if the advice is applied unthinkingly. In other words why would I shoot to the right when this is more or less guaranteed to damage the final captured image. As a result I habitually shoot at least 1/3 stop below what the meter tells me to at least have some chance of pulling something back. Oh and of course I always shoot in RAW format which facilitates the same. On the other hand in a studio - where a good photographer has 100% control of lighting it could make perfect sense.

[@improbablehandle]

Blinkies and RGB histies rule!

[@senate_shakya_]

THAT NIKON GUY

[@pcofranc]

I'm different than "most people" because I KNOW that I don't know what the histogram is telling me lol that's why I here : -)

[@simianinc]

Representation of a raw image is simply an interpretation. One thing I noticed when I switched from Aperture to Lightroom is how different the pictures looked. If camera manufacturers showed a histogram based on raw, there's no guarantee that your editor of choice would see it the same way. Some histograms only show luminance which is a combination of the three RGB channels. If you expose all the way up to the right edge, it may be that one of your channels is clipping and you won't even know. But the picture will look terrible in the clipped areas. Cameras that show the RGB channels separately will warn you of this.

[@laurac2031]

So this is not about statistics?

[@Yahgiggle]

Always wondered why my histogram told lies in camera to the point i stopped relying on it oO

[@robertedwards1145]

Nothing on exposing to the right?

[@tonytangpro]

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.

[@elduderino7456]

You know you are a photography nerd when you are wearing a manfrotto jacket...

[@rudiger007]

I was wondering if anyone else noticed that

[@master92737]

but he explained on pro

[@VitaliRiskin]

you know you are a photography nerd when you notice the slight exposure changes in this video and you know he put it on auto.. haha

[@dm.b7560]

And the wide shot is dark....

[@arnn9344]

haha