PixelPix wrote:
> 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.
I have put this reply on the end of this post, 'cause my news server has
hiccuped and lost the earlier posts.
The *only * situation that blows a channel - any or all channels - is
overexposure at the time of taking the shot. If the photon wells in the
chip max out, then the channel is blown; if they are not maxed out then
the camera will not blow a channel. In-camera settings do not have any
effect on RAW files - at least with Canon cameras. You can blow a
channel in Photoshop with levels or curves, however, but don't confuse
that with the raw image.
I understand that (some?) Nikons throw away image information in
compressed NEFs, but Canons do not do that with their CRW files. Canon
RAW files are not affected by any of the in-camera settings; they only
come into play if you are shooting jpegs. What Nikon does with their
RAW files is anyone's guess. Possibly the thrown away data in NEFs
could influence the output from those files.
Colin D.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**
|
