On Apr 8, 8:01=A0am, rodkosmos <rod.pf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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. =A0An improperly set WB will
> > >> result in a significantly higher noise floor for your RAW images.
> > >> This is most evident on the blue channel. =A0WB 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
w=
hite
> > 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. =A0WB is calculated into
se=
tting
> > many different camera parameters, even simple ones such as how the
camer=
a
> > exposes an image. =A0True, 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. =A0You 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. =A0The "which-
> doctors" =A0have 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.
>
> Rodwww.da-vinci-vision.com
Personally I believe that RAW is RAW and that WB makes no difference
to my camera's exposure. As I mentioned back up the thread, why is it
that I end up with identical images, RGB histograms & shadow detail/
noise etc. regardless of the WB settings I use? When shooting RAW the
only settings that I can control are exposure/iso.... any camera
settings for WB, contrast, sharpening or even custom tone curves have
zero effect on the data captured.
Shooting with a grey card or similar does allow for accurate exposure
measurements, but this does not necessarily mean that the camera's
exposure meter is any less or more accurate.... and often the use of a
grey card is not practical. (eg shooting wildlife with a 600mm and the
subject is in totally different light than the photographer..... or
shooting a fast paced event like motors****t on a partially cloudy day
when the light keeps changing)
Grey/white cards allow for accurate custom WB setting agreed, but
again this makes no difference to my RAW files. It can be a handy aid
for setting WB in the conversion process, but this again does not make
the photographer's eye any more or less accurate, if the aim is what
the photographer finds visually appealing.
JPEG is another issue of course, as image adjustments/camera settings
are applied at the time of capture and there is no going back. So the
more accurate we can make those camera settings the better. However
this is NOT saying that RAW can fix everything and that we can be
slack, as accurate exposure is still critical, it just means that with
RAW we are not locked into "camera applied - first tier adjustments"
to the image data and that we have the luxury of making these
adjustments (or multiple variations of) during the RAW conversion
process.
|
