On Apr 7, 4:57 am, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> >> Don't be fooled into thinking that by shooting RAW your WB settings
> >> doesn't have any effects on the image. An improperly set WB will
> >> result in a significantly higher noise floor for your RAW images.
> >> This is most evident on the blue channel. WB settings drive other
> >> key camera settings that will affect image quality.
>
> > Ok, so please explain to me how the camera WB setting effect the raw
> > image other than by just recording what the WB setting was in the EXIF
> > data and by using it for the embedded JPEGs?
>
> There are many more articles, but here's a simple one.
>
> "This article was great because it really dispels the myth that RAW can
fix
> everything; the camera literally captures differently depending on its
white
> balance setting."
>
>
<http://www.ppmag.com/web-exclusives/2007/11/white-balance-the-secret-...>
>
> > Maybe I just don't understand but everything I've read and witnessed
> > leads me to believe that the WB setting doesn't do anything at all to
> > the image data in the raw file.
>
> You, like many others, erroneously assume RAW data is just that, 100%
> unprocessed data from the sensor, it is not. WB is calculated into
setting
> many different camera parameters, even simple ones such as how the
camera
> exposes an image. True, you can always change this is post, but at a
cost.
> Set you WB so you can intentionally blow your blue channel and come back
and
> tell what you find after you correct it in post. You get more leeway
with
> RAW than using JPG, but you are still not getting a free lunch shooting
RAW.
> That is why it is so im****tant to get it right in-camera.
>
> Rita
HI RITA
What a great statement!!!!
RAW is just another file format.. It is processed. The "which-
doctors" have got most photographers under the the "spell" that you
can fix the common cold with RAW.
You will find that some Raw images are sharper out of some cameras
than Jpegs and vice versa. That is because of the they are processed.
What happens to the image while converting the visible light image
that falls on the CCD into a digital set of numbers is almost anyone
guess.
If we match the light coming through the lens to the CCD before the
processing take place by setting the CCD to capture the data it needs,
we will get the desired result without major loss.
This is the beauty of the TRIflex.
It sets the CCD to capture three major areas. The right colour
spectrum, the neutral exposure. and the contrast points.
It can do this within 1/50 of an f stop and with colour fidelity to
about 0.25%: plus keep highlights and shadow points within the
printable range of CMYK conversion and way below the limits of RGB.
Would you like me to send you one?
let me know.
Rod
www.da-vinci-vision.com
|
