They are explicit about how they achieve their goals though, so if you're interested, you can figure out exactly why they're drawn the way they are, and determine for yourself if information that you find useful is not well represented.
I don't think so; with open source software yes but not with the commercial companies. I use (and have to use) those commercial products.
What would you propose as an alternative to interpretive histograms? Is there something for you that you feel would make the data more readable?
What I would like is standardization. Go back to the image I posted. In that example I allowed each converter to open the file and apply their standard tone curves. Compare the two commercial products, ACR and C1. There's a big difference with C1 showing that I have clipped highlights. The C1 image is lighter and has more contrast. This is the photo as shot.
I know both programs are applying adjustment curves to the photo. You noted that UFRAW has a input histogram. ACR and C1 both allow you to remove the adjustment curves. They both use the same term for the alternative: linear -- fare assumption that linear would be the same as UFRAW's input histogram. So I go back with that same image and open it again in ACR and C1 and select the linear option. What do I get? -- a reversal in fact. Now the ACR image is lighter than the C1 image and they are not nearly the same.
I don't use UFRAW but I regularly use DPP, ACR, C1, and RT. I am very familiar with Capture NX and SlikyPix and slightly familiar with Bibble. That's seven different RAW file converters. And I'm confident that they will all open up the same DNG file and all show you something at least slightly different and that's with their tone curves disabled. I find that unsettling. I am not prepared to begin a detailed investigation into how seven different software programs are interpreting my RAW files assuming I actually could get that info.
Consider already how different I am from your average photographer. I've got four RAW file converters loaded on my computer and I use all four of them because I have already devoted long hours to investigating their performance. I wish one of them was fully adequate. You use UFRAW to open a DNG file and then open the same DNG file in C1 and the UFRAW input histogram and C1 linear histogram don't agree -- fair assumption. No problem? How valuable then is the info from either?
We do have standards. Color spaces are standards. R=123, G=87, B=166 sRGB is a specific color we have all agreed upon. If I set that color in all seven of those RAW converters they'll all show me the exact same thing. However when they first open one of my RAW files, a pixel that one of them displays as R=128, G=128, B=128 is displayed by one of the others as R=102, G=102, B=102 and by one of the others as R=143, G=143, B=143 and by one of the others as ......etc. Assuming that was my grey card in the photo it would sure be nice if there was a way that I could get my RAW file converters to open that file to a standard starting place so I'd get the same value from the grey card in each converter.
Going all the way back to the OP's question. I'd like valuable feedback on my exposure. I'd like to photograph a grey card and then open my RAW file and read a value for that grey card and know it meant something -- right now I know it doesn't. The same file open in all four of my converters gives me four different values for that grey card. I used to be able to get that info with film and a densitometer. The densitometer gave me a standard. I want that standard back.
Joe
P.S. I suspect you and I agree far more than not.