On Apr 13, 12:35 am, Willarojo <macropho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> vehemently accused
innews:YsmdneCCFrE4gGTanZ2dnUVZ_qvinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> > 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-se
> > cret-weapo-1.html>
>
> >> 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
>
> Is it too late to jump in on this one?
>
> I read the article in "ppmag" and I have a question: is the
> author suggesting that because changing the color/WB sliders while
> manipulating a RAW file is the same as (or at least comparable to)
> varying the WB settings that were set when the RAW was taken? Is
> she suggesting that post-shot processing is directly comparable to
> shot-taking settings? Am I misunderstanding this? I mean, she is
> comparing 2 different conversions/manipulations of 1 RAW file, not
> comparing multiple RAWs and RAW settings, right?
> May I propose a (hopefully) rigorous way to examine this: take
> a series of shots of the same object/scene in the exact same
> lighting conditions, but in every "basic" WB setting. In fact, we
> could go further and do the same thing for every Kelvin increment
> setting, I think.
> If the RAW histograms are all the same, then WB does not affect
> RAW exposure; if they vary, then WB does affect exposure. We could
> even estimate how much they affect exposure.
> So, is WB metadata that is recorded at exposure, but does not
> directly affect; or is it a "mask" that is recorded *and* applied
> at exposure?
> I don't have the answer, but this clearly is an im****tant
> issue, and I certainly would like to know, so I can set my camera
> properly, depending on what I hope to accomplish at any given
> shoot.
> Or do all y'all want to continue with the sniping, which I must
> say is terribly clever and entertaining. (Not really.)
>
> Willa
> --http://www.pbase.com/willarojo
>
> "I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to
> live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad."
> Thoreau, Civil Disobedience
>
> "We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph line from
> Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing
> im****tant to communicate."
> Thoreau, Walden
The test that you have suggested has been conducted and re****ted on
two or three times throughout this thread and WB has made absolutely
no difference to exposure while shooting RAW, as the histograms have
remained identical.
|
