PixelPix <mail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> vehemently accused in
news:162f4967-3904-4857-b61d-9cceea6a956c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
>
That's what I found in my own half-assed attempt at the same
experiment.
So, the rest of the thread is fluff, neh?
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
******
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder
|
