Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 361257" data-attributes="member: 12496">I think&nbsp; you mean the height of the histogram.&nbsp; The histogram is scaled, and WILL ALWAYS BE FULL HEIGHT.&nbsp; It does not matter how you change it, its peak will always be (very nearly) full height.&nbsp;&nbsp; Yes, it is very normal.Height means nothing.&nbsp; Well specifically, it means the count of the pixels with that tonal value, but a relative count - its height is scaled, meaning all values are multiplied with a constant so that its peak will always be full height.&nbsp; &nbsp; It helps us see the horizontal distribution, including the very low values.What does have meaning is the horizontal distribution. Your histogram data should normally approach (but not quite touch) the right edge, so the only meaning in this one is either 1) it was a scene composed of only very dark colors, or much more likely, 2) that your picture is underexposed.&nbsp; Boost it up with Exposure in Lightroom (by eye, until you like it), and pay closer attention next time to get it more right in the camera.As you adjust tones (exposure this time) to move data right, the pixel counts change, and you will see its heights jump around as it keeps scaling to make the peaks (very nearly) reach full height.&nbsp; The height means nothing.&nbsp; It will be full scale.Would be interesting to see this picture.&nbsp; A wild guess (without great confidence) is there is some larger white thing (larger area, pixel count) about midscale, and the white balance is incorrect, so the three RGB peaks do not coincide on the white thingie.&nbsp; Shifting WB will move the Red and Blue peaks in opposite directions, and if literally a large white thingie, they&nbsp; will coincide when WB is about correct.&nbsp;&nbsp; Of course, it helps to be there to actually see what we are discussing.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 361257, member: 12496"] I think you mean the height of the histogram. The histogram is scaled, and WILL ALWAYS BE FULL HEIGHT. It does not matter how you change it, its peak will always be (very nearly) full height. Yes, it is very normal. Height means nothing. Well specifically, it means the count of the pixels with that tonal value, but a relative count - its height is scaled, meaning all values are multiplied with a constant so that its peak will always be full height. It helps us see the horizontal distribution, including the very low values. What does have meaning is the horizontal distribution. Your histogram data should normally approach (but not quite touch) the right edge, so the only meaning in this one is either 1) it was a scene composed of only very dark colors, or much more likely, 2) that your picture is underexposed. Boost it up with Exposure in Lightroom (by eye, until you like it), and pay closer attention next time to get it more right in the camera. As you adjust tones (exposure this time) to move data right, the pixel counts change, and you will see its heights jump around as it keeps scaling to make the peaks (very nearly) reach full height. The height means nothing. It will be full scale. Would be interesting to see this picture. A wild guess (without great confidence) is there is some larger white thing (larger area, pixel count) about midscale, and the white balance is incorrect, so the three RGB peaks do not coincide on the white thingie. Shifting WB will move the Red and Blue peaks in opposite directions, and if literally a large white thingie, they will coincide when WB is about correct. Of course, it helps to be there to actually see what we are discussing. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification