Chris Malcolm <cam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> vehemently accused in
news:66e4lkF2j4kvlU3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In rec.photo.digital Willarojo <macrophotog@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>> PixelPix <mail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> vehemently accused in
>> news:162f4967-3904-4857-b61d-9cceea6a956c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> ps. com:
>
>>> On Apr 13, 12:35 am, Willarojo <macropho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> vehemently accused
>>>> innews:YsmdneCCFrE4gGTanZ2dnUVZ_qvinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>> >> 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
>
>>> 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?
>
> Unless not all cameras behave the same with respect to WB and
> RAW. Unlike jpeg RAW isn't a public standard, it's just a
> generic name for the entire caboodle of what different camera
> output as their least processed closest to sensor data encoded
> image files. Not only do different makers produce different
> kinds of RAW files, but most of them try to keep exactly what
> they do a trade secret.
>
So the answer to the OP is "Maybe" and "Test your own camera".
That's why I was asking about the guidelines for a comparison,
so I would know if I was performing a useful test, or just making
up useless data. :)
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
|
