Monitor image vs. Raw file

[dseigel2]

I'm guessing this is not specific to the camera I'm using but more of a general question. I am saving the pictures I take in raw format only. After I take a picture on my DSLR the monitor shows me an image of that picture. Later when I view the raw file I am seeing a 'different' picture. If the raw file was underexposed the monitor image is adjusted if possible to show an properly exposed image. So I can't tell if the exposure was proper or not by looking at the monitor image after I take the picture. How can I figure out if the raw file is properly exposed or not without waiting until I load it onto my computer?

[Anbesol]

Some raw conversion applications will open up the raw image and automatically apply pre-configured adjustments. You can disable these adjustments and change to a setting usually called "As shot" (depending on the program you are using).

The monitor also only shows 8-bit, so the 4096 shades per channel don't show on it either, rather, you see the 8-bit duplicate of a 12/14 bit image (256 shades per color channel). But thats irrelevant to the exposure.

What raw conversion software are you using? Mfr provided or PS or something else?

[Photo-John]

Anbesol's answer is good. There are a couple more details I'd like to add, though. First - never trust what you see on your camera's LCD to be accurate. It's really only good for judging composition, sharpness - and nominally, exposure. Second - the only way to really see your image color and exposure accurately is with a profiled monitor and proper color settings. Your monitor should be "profiled" (calibrated) with profiling hardware and software so that it matches a universal, outside standard. And you should have Photoshop or whatever software you're using set up to best display the color in your image files. If you don't, the color and density you see on your computer monitor may be completely different from what everyone else sees on their monitors.

[dseigel2]

Anbesol wants to know what software I'm using for conversion from raw format. I'm using Lightroom.

[dseigel2]

Second - the only way to really see your image color and exposure accurately is with a profiled monitor and proper color settings. Your monitor should be "profiled" (calibrated) with profiling hardware and software so that it matches a universal, outside standard.

I don't disagree with this statement. However, besides the fact that I currently can't afford profiling hardware and software, obviously this would only help standardize things among people who have also profiled their monitor. I would suspect that most people who do not work in this field for a living have not profiled their monitor. Therefore, you are following an objective standard, which is good, but not many others are following the objective standard.

[Anbesol]

obviously this would only help standardize things among people who have also profiled their monitor

Whatever deviation there is within each persons monitor would be consistent, instead of compounded to the difference of your uncalibrated monitor. Editing images needs to be held to this outside standard to maximize the quality of the output.

And Huey and Spyder make some solutions starting at only $50, which is one sixth what Lightroom costs. Win 7 has a calibration utility in the control panel which actually works pretty well also, which is free if you already have Win 7.

[Frog]

There are many tests you can perform on the net. Google monitor calibration and take your pick.
I looked at this one http://www.imaging-resource.com/ARTS.../CALIBRATE.HTM

Found mine to be quite good except for the gamma is off and I'll have to remedy that soon.