robyferrero wrote: Mon Sep 08, 2025 10:30 am
Keep a flat profile to make the camera's JPG histogram as close to the RAW as possible?
Maybe you're right; it's better than nothing. The rule of thumb is that you can clip the camera's histogram a little. But how much is unknown.
This rule of thumb applies to outdoor photography, whether you're shooting with a reasoned eye or using point-and-shoot techniques.
The alternative is to do test after test, comparing the camera's histogram with the RAW image on your computer, and in any case, you may never be able to accurately determine the histogram.
I think there's software that allows you to read the correct raw data, but I don't remember the name.
For reproducing color negatives, however, you could take three shots: N, +1, +2. This would save you from having to go back and forth between the camera and the computer to check the histogram.
I think the PS histogram is precise enough to read the MakeTiff linear file.
Just understand that exposure with MakeTiff increases, or, I'd say, doubles, like apertures:
If you're at 1/4 of the histogram, +1EV takes you to the middle. If you're in the middle of the histogram, +1EV takes you to the right.
Your example file requires +2EV.
But this +2EV, in this case, only applies to the reproduction of the color negative.
If your example file, with this MakeTiff histogram, were a normal photograph taken outdoors, then you would be underexposed by -1EV, so you would have to overexpose by +1EV.
And it's only the MakeTiff histogram you need to evaluate, otherwise it will confuse you.
If you try to process the same RAW with Color Perfect, but convert one with MakeTiff and the other with CameraRaw, these two will again look different. The same thing, in my opinion, happens if you exit Lightroom with one of those linear profiles.
The solution is always MakeTiff with its histogram.
Color Perfect is best designed to work with MakeTiff; it's true that it works wonders with other TIFFs, but nothing beats MakeTiff.
That's great advice Roberto!
It is my early days of shooting with Linear Tiffs in mind, you of course have been doing that a lot longer, as you convert your Raws through the powerful PerfectRAW, which requires Linear files, instead of going to the usual Adobe solutions. In the process of making these softwares more user friendly, they stop showing the users crucial information, such as the ones we are talking about. By using a regular Histogram, depending on the Profile, Camera Brand, and even Photo Editor, you get different interpretations of the same Raw file, where in one place you would think you have blown your highlights, while in other you have headroom to spare.
This process has been confusing, but at the same time, very enriching to better grasp how digital files work beyond what histogram show us!
You give several ideas. Trying different exposures, and trying to correlate the in Camera Histogram to Linear is an interesting one, although this could be affected by several factors. But this would give a rough idea at least to work with.
About the bracketing exposures, it's something I definitely will be doing when shooting digitally. But for Film Scanning, this would probably get out of hand quickly
36 Frames to Scan, and as I use Pixel Shift to get better Signal to Noise Ratio, and Color Reproduction, each frame consists of 8 Pictures taken. So instead of 8X36 for a roll, we would be doing 3X(8X36), which would take longer, a ton of disk space etc. That's why I much prefer to find the right exposure first, and then I can just shoot away the roll and be done with it quickly!
I am gonna be doing more experimentations, I have already disassembled my Stand unfortunately, and it takes a bit of time to get everything to match correctly, but as soon as I do, more experimentations for sure!
It just feels wrong... I am sure this will go away as I get used to this practice!