Sign in to follow this  
DarkSlide

Nikon vs. Canon Histograms.

Recommended Posts

Has anyone noticed how Nikon Raw file histograms, in levels, don’t behave in the same way as Canon ones in PS?  I’ve always managed to adjust Canon files significantly in levels, so long as I do it in 16bit, without major damage to the histogram. Nikon ones however seriously toothcomb and exhibit complete gaps (even in 16bit) with only the slightest adjustment in PS resulting in exposures at the time of capture having to be more precise. Is this something anyone has noticed, as well as me, or do most people not worry about the way a histogram looks after processing? I was led to believe Alamy likes smooth histos. because a seriously toothcombed one means image damage. All my files are shot highest quality raw uncompressed. Any comments greatly appreciated.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be a display problem with the histogram not accurately reflecting the file after adjustment. After adjustment the histogram is no longer accurate.

 

 

I am using Photoshop 6 on 16 bit Raw DNG files converted from Canon Raw files. After I make an adjustment the histogram toothcombs but also has a warning triangle showing.

Click on the warning triangle and the histogram regenerates itself from the new adjusted file. This usually resulting in a smooth accurate histogram.

 

 

You do need a smooth histogram.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am using elements 8 and have never noticed a warning triangle. Can you help me as to where it might be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DarkSlide said:

Has anyone noticed how Nikon Raw file histograms, in levels, don’t behave in the same way as Canon ones in PS?  I’ve always managed to adjust Canon files significantly in levels, so long as I do it in 16bit, without major damage to the histogram. Nikon ones however seriously toothcomb and exhibit complete gaps (even in 16bit) with only the slightest adjustment in PS resulting in exposures at the time of capture having to be more precise. Is this something anyone has noticed, as well as me, or do most people not worry about the way a histogram looks after processing? I was led to believe Alamy likes smooth histos. because a seriously toothcombed one means image damage. All my files are shot highest quality raw uncompressed. Any comments greatly appreciated.
 

 

You asked for any comments so here goes. What strikes me is that you are using levels in PS Elements 8, having gone to the trouble of shooting raw uncompressed NEFs (probably totally unnecessary, lossless compressed is indistinguishable as far as I am aware), in some cases at least using a D800 series camera - I don't know what camera produced your 60.2 MB images.

 

Levels in PS (full or elements) is primitive for most editing purposes - it's a one-dimensional tool mainly useful for setting white and black points if printing from PS. Does it even work in 16-bit mode in Elements 8? How are you converting the raw files anyway? If you are doing it on DNGs in Elements 8, then you are using really out of date software. Raw converters have improved massively in recent years. However you are doing the conversions, you would be far better to do your contrast and other adjustments in ACR (full version), Lightroom or other decent raw converter. Why use such high quality equipment and not use software that can do justice to the files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply MDM. The camera producing the 60.2 Mb files is a 5D Mk2 which I don't have a problem with. The camera creating NEFs is as you rightly said is a D800e.

Levels does work in 16 bit in elements and for my Canon files I use DPP. I have only just recently upgraded to a  computer that will run LR, maybe I'll give it a try with respect to Nikon files. I'm interested to know why I should not use the highest quality the camera will produce when I paid the extra for the "E" version. Again thanks. D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DarkSlide said:

Thanks for the reply MDM. The camera producing the 60.2 Mb files is a 5D Mk2 which I don't have a problem with. The camera creating NEFs is as you rightly said is a D800e.

Levels does work in 16 bit in elements and for my Canon files I use DPP. I have only just recently upgraded to a  computer that will run LR, maybe I'll give it a try with respect to Nikon files. I'm interested to know why I should not use the highest quality the camera will produce when I paid the extra for the "E" version. Again thanks. D

 

Just to be clear, I didn't say you shouldn't be using the D800E, I said you should be using high quality software that does justice to the files from that camera. I would advise you to do most of your post-processing in LR, ACR or similar high quality raw converter and forget levels in PS (Elements or otherwise). The controls in LR/ACR are far superior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this