|
|
Welcome, Anonymous (Profile, Private Messages)
Having trouble signing into the forums? Please [ logout ] and log back in.
 Log in
| Author |
Message |
rssfhs
Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 987
Location: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.A.
|
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 3:46 pm
|  |
| fraiseap wrote: | | rssfhs wrote: | I shoot with my Canon 5d Mk II in RAW using the various in-camera white balance settings: daylight, cloudy, tungsten, etc. Then I tweak the temperature in PS to get the desired result. I sometimes cool things way down to give a special effect as in this photo:
|
I am sorry guys, but I have checked and the cameras white balance does not affect the RAW file at all. The white balance data is saved in the EXIF data but the RAW file is exactly what it says - raw data with no sharpening or white balance adjustments. Here is a quote from Luminous Landscape
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml
— Raw files have not had white balance set. They are tagged with whatever the camera's setting was, (either that which was manually set or via auto-white-balance), but the actual data has not been changed. This allows one to set any colour temperature and white balance one wishes after the fact with no image degradation. It should be understood that once the file has been converted from the linear space and has had a gamma curve applied (such as in a JPG) white balance can no longer be properly done.
Adam |
I meant to say RAW + JPG Fine. |
|
Mike Price
Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 1873
Location: South Wales
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 3:51 pm
| |
| fraiseap wrote: | | rssfhs wrote: | I shoot with my Canon 5d Mk II in RAW using the various in-camera white balance settings: daylight, cloudy, tungsten, etc. Then I tweak the temperature in PS to get the desired result. I sometimes cool things way down to give a special effect as in this photo:
|
I am sorry guys, but I have checked and the cameras white balance does not affect the RAW file at all. The white balance data is saved in the EXIF data but the RAW file is exactly what it says - raw data with no sharpening or white balance adjustments. Here is a quote from Luminous Landscape
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml
— Raw files have not had white balance set. They are tagged with whatever the camera's setting was, (either that which was manually set or via auto-white-balance), but the actual data has not been changed. This allows one to set any colour temperature and white balance one wishes after the fact with no image degradation. It should be understood that once the file has been converted from the linear space and has had a gamma curve applied (such as in a JPG) white balance can no longer be properly done.
Adam |
This is also my understanding Adam. By setting the WB in camera it gives a starting point for postprocssing the RAW image but any WB can be set in the raw processor as all RAW data is retained. This of course is the advantage as if you screw up WB with JPG it is difficult or sometimes impossible to correct wheareas correcting in RAW is very easy.
Mike |
|
jmpaget
Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 1190
Location: UK
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 3:58 pm
| |
| fraiseap wrote: | | rssfhs wrote: | I shoot with my Canon 5d Mk II in RAW using the various in-camera white balance settings: daylight, cloudy, tungsten, etc. Then I tweak the temperature in PS to get the desired result. I sometimes cool things way down to give a special effect as in this photo:
|
I am sorry guys, but I have checked and the cameras white balance does not affect the RAW file at all. The white balance data is saved in the EXIF data but the RAW file is exactly what it says - raw data with no sharpening or white balance adjustments. Here is a quote from Luminous Landscape
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml
— Raw files have not had white balance set. They are tagged with whatever the camera's setting was, (either that which was manually set or via auto-white-balance), but the actual data has not been changed. This allows one to set any colour temperature and white balance one wishes after the fact with no image degradation. It should be understood that once the file has been converted from the linear space and has had a gamma curve applied (such as in a JPG) white balance can no longer be properly done.
Adam |
It gives a reference point for the raw conversion... where you can set the white balance - 'AS SHOT', along with auto, custom, shady, flash, blah blah |
|
maltaguy1
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 343
Location: Malta, EU
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 4:10 pm
| |
I shoot RAW all the time...therefore I set my WB to Auto and then take care of it later in PP.. |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 13738
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, slipping into darkness
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 5:19 pm
| |
| fraiseap wrote: | | jeffbanke wrote: | Mike,
Give up shooting JPG, set the camera on 5600K (one less thing to think about in the heat of the moment) shoot RAW and fix everthing in the RAW processor when you have the comfort of a Southern Comfort and your arm chair to think about what temperature you want the image to be!
|
Forgive my ignorance but I didn't think setting WB on the camera made any difference to the RAW file. |
I am sorry I was out for a while, but I see the other guys answered the question anyway. As they stated, WB info is attached to the RAW file and is a start point for the RAW processor, but is otherwise meaningless.
I leave my cameras set on Daylight or 5600K because it also is suitable for flash work, and therefore is about 90% of what I do, meaning I don't have to do much post work.
Bobby several years ago tuned me into the RAW & JPG mode when I was shooting with my D70s, the JPG's were basic and hence unuseable for anything other than quick reviewing of images prior to opening in the RAW processor. My D100 did not have that capability, so I worked in just RAW. My D300 has the ability to do RAW + Large, Fine JPG's, so that is the methodology I use with that camera, finding that I can use the JPG's much of the time as is, with no post work. But since I am often shooting images that are to be used as elements in later composites, I have the digital negative as Bobby pointed out to play with.
So the choices are carry a white card around with you, take a test shot in every lighting situation, set the camera on whatever the camera tells you is the correct WB for the situation,
or shoot RAW, (no white balancing neccesary), tweak as desired in post where one is under less pressure to "get it right in the camera". I mean outdoor weddings and sporting events are places where if you screw up the WB shooting JPG you are screwed and must face the wreath of Bridezilla or soccer Mom!
Seriously though Mike, shooting RAW allows you to concentrate on the all important composition, rather than a technicality like changing light as clouds pass in front of the sun thereby changing the WB and requiring you to change it on the camera, or worse still miss the money shot. |
|
mikeledray
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 17746
Location: The King of the Count Down!
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 5:46 pm
| |
I guess I will be trying my hand at raw as soon as I can
thank you everyone
geeze seems like Everyone shoots in Raw now |
|
gvictoria
Joined: 08 Apr 2005
Posts: 256
Location: toronto
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 5:54 pm
| |
I just got a new camera too.. and i've given in to shooting raw also after using just jpegs with my microstock for years. I worked with a few samples and the raw files were much better to work with especially if you're trying to reduce noise. Such great results are not possible with jpegs without making the image look soft. |
|
Photoshow
Joined: 05 Nov 2004
Posts: 5447
Location: Somewhere between where I'm going and where I've been
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 6:43 pm
| |
| karimala wrote: | | straehle wrote: | | When you shoot raw, there is WB information in the raw file that your processor uses to make its decisions, so wb does count when you shoot raw. |
This is exactly why I don't like processing in RAW, and choose instead to process in JPEG (remember, I do shoot in RAW + JPEG fine so I can have the negative). I've found time and time again that the WB (and often saturation levels) automatically changes when I open the image in a RAW converter, and can turn these odd hues of green or magenta. I don't want software that thinks for me, especially after I've taken the time to get the image right in camera.
| straehle wrote: | | I have found that auto WB is eratic as mentioned above and that any fixed WB setting is better than auto. |
Me, too. Auto WB can produce some weird results in mixed lighting. |
RAW does not think for you, JPG thinks for you.
Nothing in raw is locked. Every single setting can be manipulated and even after to you output it as long as you do not save over the original raw file you can go back to the as shot data and start from scratch.
JPG is processed for you right from the start. Color tone and curve information is set and locked based on the algorithm of the cameras processing chip. You can of course alter it after the fact but you can not bring back the 2 out of 3 similar pixels that jpg discards and you can not restore the pixel quality to the remaining pixel that jpg squashes to fill the space of the lost pixels.
Even though we have the capability to adjust WB at will when shooting in raw it would behoove everyone to learn their color temperatures for a given scene and attempt to dial in a true Kelvin temp in the camera when shooting.
As has been stated already Auto white balance will often produce different results from frame to frame even when shooting in controlled conditions. This variable can result in your loosing one of the greatest advantageous of working in raw and that is the ability to batch process files shot under the same conditions at the same time. Aside from using the flash preset when using my SB800 on Full Power Balanced at events I never use the any of the wb presets. I prefer to dial in my kelvin temp. based on experiance and taste. |
|
sharond
Joined: 14 Jul 2006
Posts: 846
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 9:12 pm
| |
I read in a forum once that photo paper is useful for setting wb in a pinch. I can't say whether it works or not but couldn't hurt to try it.
A couple of pages back someone said they don't shoot RAW and don't see the point in it. I recently found out you won't have banding as bad if you edit in 16 bit mode and I found this to be true. With me it depends some on the subject whether I bother with RAW or not. |
|
otnaydur
Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 91
Location: somewhere in the heart of Asia
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 10:36 pm
| |
| sharond wrote: | I read in a forum once that photo paper is useful for setting wb in a pinch. I can't say whether it works or not but couldn't hurt to try it.
A couple of pages back someone said they don't shoot RAW and don't see the point in it. I recently found out you won't have banding as bad if you edit in 16 bit mode and I found this to be true. With me it depends some on the subject whether I bother with RAW or not. |
Yeah that's true, I have tried it when I don't bring my grey card, but it will be useless as it will change color when it gets older. Same things happen to my grey card as I live in tropical country - humidity change its color after long use(I change my last one after 2 years using it). Sometime you can use most neutral white surface such as wall.
IMHO - WB setting is very important. I always use RAW, but i need precise color temperature in certain lighting condition so If I want to warm or cool the picture, I know how much the color shifted from the original point and make adjustment according to my like.
At least that is my first thing in my workflow before doing anything else. I set my WB setting on my camera on AutoWB, First I just take a picture of white surface material of my grey card, and then start shooting, so later I can adjust the WB for all shot in the same condition using this picture (using software by locating the white point in the first picture)
(sorry for my bad English) |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 13738
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, slipping into darkness
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 11:18 pm
| |
| sharond wrote: | I read in a forum once that photo paper is useful for setting wb in a pinch. I can't say whether it works or not but couldn't hurt to try it.
A couple of pages back someone said they don't shoot RAW and don't see the point in it. I recently found out you won't have banding as bad if you edit in 16 bit mode and I found this to be true. With me it depends some on the subject whether I bother with RAW or not. |
Yes, this is true, one of the major differences I forgot to mention earlier Mike, is that most Digital SLR cameras generate 12 bit RAW images, newer are 14 bit, PS upscales to 16 bit in RAW!
JPG is and always will be 8 bit.
This limits the number of colors, the depth of detail, etc available.
Yes I know that eventually we end up in the JPG domian, but it is only logical to use ALL the power of manipulation that one can when one has the greater information to play with. As I said before JPG was developed as a transmission medium NOT a processing medium.
I mean you wouldn't use a pickup truck to enter into to a formula 1 race, nor would you use a formula one sports car to try and carry 1/2 ton of bricks! |
|
mikeledray
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 17746
Location: The King of the Count Down!
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 11:37 pm
| |
I will have to get a newer computer, get ps cs4, and then start shooting raw
one of these days
for the moment im sticking to jpg
I dont think my version of PS7 can even do raw
I looked for it but it does not even mention it that I could find
oh well........
but you all have convinced me
raw is the latest way to shoot and edit |
|
karimala
Joined: 04 Sep 2005
Posts: 2218
Location: Sacramento, CA
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 11:59 pm
| |
| mikeledray wrote: |
but you all have convinced me
raw is the latest way to shoot and edit |
I'm still not convinced. LOL I've tried three different RAW processors (Camera RAW, CaptureNX, Lightroom 2.0), and for the life of me cannot get the quality of results that I get by processing in JPEG. Quite frankly, everything ends up looking like crap...so obviously I'm either doing something wrong when processing RAW, or I just don't get it. |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 13738
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, slipping into darkness
|
|
Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 12:03 am
| |
| mikeledray wrote: |
raw is the latest way to shoot and edit |
Didn't say that exactly Mike!
It is however the only way to edit! |
|
Photoshow
Joined: 05 Nov 2004
Posts: 5447
Location: Somewhere between where I'm going and where I've been
|
|
Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 12:04 am
| |
| karimala wrote: | | mikeledray wrote: |
but you all have convinced me
raw is the latest way to shoot and edit |
I'm still not convinced. LOL I've tried three different RAW processors (Camera RAW, CaptureNX, Lightroom 2.0), and for the life of me cannot get the quality of results that I get by processing in JPEG. Quite frankly, everything ends up looking like crap...so obviously I'm either doing something wrong when processing RAW, or I just don't get it. |
If you come to the Park City workshop in August I will sit at a laptop with you and teach you a raw workflow that will make your life and your photos better :-) |
|
| |
|
Shutterstock Forum for Contributors
|
