Gibbon Falls, #4. Yellowstone NP, Wyoming, 2014
If you shoot RAW, your camera histogram is pulling the old Pinocchio long nose thing on you. It is giving you data based on an in-camera JPEG interpretation of the scene. Your full RAW file may have much more available detail on the left and right sides of that graph than indicated.
Backing up a bit…
After pressing the shutter, I very often will “chimp” the capture on the LCD. I look at the LCD only for basic composition, and then I look at the RGB histograms to make sure I haven’t blocked the shadows or clipped the highlights in these channels or the overall. I don’t look at the LCD image to judge exposure–I rely on the histogram data for that. That tiny LCD, especially in bright sunlight or in the dark, is a very Thomas Crapper way to eyeball the exposure.
Now, back to the big lie…
When you check the histogram exposure graph after the shot, you are actually looking at data for the camera’s already-processed-in-the-camera JPEG file, not the RAW file. Hopefully, you have selected fairly neutral settings for your JPEG display so as to get as close to the RAW file as possible, but it still is far from perfect.
Sometimes, in a high contrast scene, this JPEG histogram will show you blown highlights (climbing the right-hand wall) or blocked shadows (climbing the left-hand wall) when, in fact, there is actually recoverable detail there in your RAW file.
This has led me to question the Expose-to-the-Right (ETTR) technique many espouse. The newer cameras are so good at pulling out virtually noiseless detail from the dark areas (using the “Shadow” slider) that I will many times prefer to leave a very small gap on the right side (highlights) of the histogram even if the same histogram shows I have blocked the shadows slightly. I may very well be able to recover those supposedly pure-black shadows. It seems to be easier to pull detail from the shadows than it is to tone down the highlights to bring back detail there. [NOTE: All this assumes you have fairly new camera technology–within the past year or two.]
Here are two examples to show you what I mean. In both cases, I was faced with a very bright morning sky and deep canyon shadows…
Example 1, the JPEG out of the camera:
Gibbon Falls, #3. Yellowstone NP, Wyoming, 2014 (original, untouched JPEG from camera)
Now, by working with the RAW file of this image, and by moving the Shadow slider in Adobe Camera RAW (all the way to the right, in this case) I was able to bring back the invisible. To wit:
Gibbon Falls, #3. Yellowstone NP, Wyoming, 2014 (post-processed RAW file)
Example 2, another JPEG out of the camera:
Gibbon Falls, #2. Yellowstone NP, Wyoming, 2014 (Original JPEG)
And after the miracle of post-processing:
Gibbon Falls, #2. Yellowstone NP, Wyoming, 2014 (post-processed RAW file)
So, just because you are faced with what looks like a Mission Impossible high contrast situation, and your histogram keeps telling you the same story, don’t give up. Sure, you can make two exposures–one for the highlights and one for the shadows–then combine them, or do an HDR series. That’s a good backup plan in some cases. But also try post-processing a single RAW image that seems to be mostly in the middle of the histogram graph. You might be very surprised at the result.
You might also like
2 Comments
nice discussion Dan and great photos to accompany. Yes, it’s ETTL for me too.
Thanks, Dana. I may ETTR to a degree, but I won’t push it too far to the right because I know once the highlights are blown they are harder to get back and also because I know I can pull up the shadows so easily if the histogram is too far left.