Originally posted by alan_smithee_photos Not to be pedantic but a jpeg is just as much "a string of numbers" as a DNG. Obviously, I get the point that a renderable version has to be created for playback -- unless it's a camera that has no preview (like a Leica M-D).
For me, I'd rather look at a histogram than some jpeg approximation of a post processing filter. But again, I'm not knocking anyone's workflow, just saying that this in-camera processing and stuff adds no value for me. I'm sure plenty of other people dig it. Hell, I'd pay a premium to get rid of that stuff (although no a Leica M-D sized premium
).
Alan, the RAW is the direct readings off the sensor.
The JPEG is a manipulated version with a set of assumptions including gamma, colour space and white balance.
So, the RAW numbers are the original data, the JPEG ones are derived quantities.
Honestly, that's two different concepts.
As for the histogram, I think you have a misunderstanding.
What you are seeing is not the RAW data, it's the result of the JPEG with a reduced bit count, so it is potentially misleading especially as far as clipping at either end is concerned.
Love all your work, BTW - I nearly bought a Voigtlander 58mm because of you!