Yes, as I noted, I could see differences in the "shape" of the histogram when viewing them first from the RAW image and then from the JPG image. The exposure stats were the same.
If the exposure statistics are always derrived from the RAW data, then that is why they are the same for both the RAW and JPG histograms.
But, if I get what you said earlier, if I imported the raw image to Lightroom and looked at the histogram, and turned on the "show shadow clipping" and "show highlight clippling" that would not necessarily agree with what FRV was telling me. (LR doesn't give me a count, but I could get a general indication of the extent of clipping by viewing the image itself with these settings on.) If FRV says, that, say, 10% of the pixels were underexposed, I should see that in LR too - but perhaps, FRV would show a smaller proportion than LR - more that could be recovered in Develop.
Yep, complicated!
David
Yes, as I noted, I could see
Yes, as I noted, I could see differences in the "shape" of the histogram when viewing them first from the RAW image and then from the JPG image. The exposure stats were the same.
If the exposure statistics are always derrived from the RAW data, then that is why they are the same for both the RAW and JPG histograms.
But, if I get what you said earlier, if I imported the raw image to Lightroom and looked at the histogram, and turned on the "show shadow clipping" and "show highlight clippling" that would not necessarily agree with what FRV was telling me. (LR doesn't give me a count, but I could get a general indication of the extent of clipping by viewing the image itself with these settings on.) If FRV says, that, say, 10% of the pixels were underexposed, I should see that in LR too - but perhaps, FRV would show a smaller proportion than LR - more that could be recovered in Develop.
Yep, complicated!
David