RAW file format

[DueyDooDah]

I am a bit confused about the correlation between white balance and raw.

1) Does the current WB setting affect a raw image or does it only matter for JPG files?

2) Do you use AWB, adjust on the fly, or have a favorite WB setting for most pictures? (this one is kindof a poll, i guess)

 

[Anewman]

I am a bit confused about the correlation between white balance and raw.

1) Does the current WB setting affect a raw image or does it only matter for JPG files?

2) Do you use AWB, adjust on the fly, or have a favorite WB setting for most pictures? (this one is kindof a poll, i guess)

the way I understand it...

The white balance setting used in camera is stored as meta data but does not get applied to the actual image data, once you get the file in software it(the program) reads that setting and will apply its version of that setting(if you have selected "AS SHOT" or other variants).

I usually do not stray from AWB, but after taking a group of pictures I will adjust one image in ACR and apply that conversion to all other pictures taken under that light. I feel it gives me a more consistent tone, and it only takes a few seconds.

 

[DizneyNutz]

These are two totally different issues. The Raw part is how your camera stores the picture after you take the photo. Raw stores it as close as possible to what the camera actually saw while taking the photo. JPEG is a lossy format and compresses and discards a lot of useful data of the actual photo. I can't describe it like others on here can, but I will tell you that in Raw you can still reset the WB once you get home on your computer and in JPEG you cannot.

 

[deletedpenguin]

From Wikipedia (I love that site):

A raw image file (sometimes written RAW image file) contains minimally processed data from the image sensor of a digital camera or image scanner. Raw files are so named because they are not yet processed and ready to be used with a bitmap graphics editor or printed. Normally, the image will be processed by a raw converter in a wide-gamut internal colorspace where precise adjustments can be made before conversion to an RGB file format such as TIFF or JPEG for storage, printing, or further manipulation.

Like a photographic negative, a digital negative may have a wider dynamic range or color gamut than the eventual final image format. The selection of the final choice of image rendering is part of the process of white balancing and color grading.

The contents of raw files include more information, and potentially higher quality, than the converted results, in which the rendering parameters are fixed, the color gamut is clipped, and there may be quantization and compression artifacts. Each pixel in a raw file has a greater bit-depth (compared to typical 8-bit renderings), and can thus store more subtle variations and range in color and detail. Hence, large transformations of the data, such as increasing the exposure of a dramatically under-exposed photo, result in less visible artifacts when done from raw data than when done from already rendered image files. Raw data leaves more scope for both corrections and artistic manipulations, without resulting in images with visible flaws such as posterization.

Nearly all digital cameras can process the image from the sensor into a JPEG file using settings for white balance, color saturation, contrast, and sharpness that are either selected automatically or entered by the photographer before taking the picture. Cameras that support raw files save these settings in the file, but defer the processing. This results in an extra step for the photographer, so raw is normally only used when additional computer processing is intended. However, raw permits much greater control than JPEG for many reasons.

Good on ya for making it this far.

Hope that helps.

 

[Master Mason]

I shoot raw, so seldom if ever use anything but AWB...

As others have said, if your shooting in RAW the WB has no real effect on the picture as you take it, only as it is processed afterwards. And you can change it as needed in that processing.

If your shooting in jpeg, then the camera applies your settings to the picture as it processes, so then it is very important as it will effect the end result, yes you can adjust it aftwards, but it is much more difficult and with the lossy jpeg, your only applying whatever changes you make to the parts of the image you have left, rather than the entire image as viewed by the sensor.

 

[MICKEY88]

I can't describe it like others on here can, but I will tell you that in Raw you can still reset the WB once you get home on your computer and in JPEG you cannot.

a common misconception, you can indeed adjust white balance with a jpeg,

you might not have as much latitude, but as wtih anything else, the better your exposure etc, the better the file you are working with to begin with, the less adjustment is needed

I adjust white balance on jpegs all the time with PAint Shop Pro Photo

 

[Master Mason]

a common misconception, you can indeed adjust white balance with a jpeg,

you might not have as much latitude, but as wtih anything else, the better your exposure etc, the better the file you are working with to begin with, the less adjustment is needed

I adjust white balance on jpegs all the time with PAint Shop Pro Photo

Actually I would say the statment was correct, it said with RAW you could reset the WB with Jpeg you can not, this is true, yes you can still adjust a jpeg, but you can't start over with your original data on a jpeg...

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I agree with what Anewman said. RAW records the white balance setting that was used but doesn't "apply" it to the data. Your RAW converter does that.

As to the white balancing of JPGs, let's not split hairs. It can be done but can't be done as well as with RAW. It's similar to adjusting exposure or saturation. With RAW, you still have all the original data and can adjust white balance with all the same capabilities you could have done when the shot was taken. With JPG you can still do it, but not as well.

As for me, I almost always shoot RAW and almost always leave the camera on AWB. When I'm going to be particular about white balance (which is quite rare), I take a test shot with my Expodisc and use it for white balancing. Not to knock the Expodisc because it does precisely what it says that it does, but I find it to provide less value for its cost then anything else in my camera bag. Like Anewman, I generally set the white balance to suit my tastes and then apply it consistently rather than trying to make it perfect.

Also keep in mind that white balancing neutralize the color of the light illuminating the subject. That's not always desirable. Shots taken at sunrise and sunset are the best examples of shots where correct white balance is undesirable. Use the color temperature to help tell your story, don't just force it to a neutral standard.

 

[deletedpenguin]

I'm sure it's obvious to everyone, but...

Only shoot RAW if you plan on doing post processing. Shoot JPG if you don't.

 

[MICKEY88]

Actually I would say the statment was correct, it said with RAW you could reset the WB with Jpeg you can not, this is true, yes you can still adjust a jpeg, but you can't start over with your original data on a jpeg...

it also said once you get home, which I interpretted to mean once you upload the pic to your pc, you can change the wb on raw, but not on jpeg..

why can't you start over with your original data on a jpeg,

I always work with a copy, and then do a save copy as, so I never lose my original file..

 

[deletedpenguin]

it also said once you get home, which I interpretted to mean once you upload the pic to your pc, you can change the wb on raw, but not on jpeg..

why can't you start over with your original data on a jpeg,

I always work with a copy, and then do a save copy as, so I never lose my original file..

You CAN adjust the WB in a jpg, but not to the same degree. There's alot more flexibility to adjust levels and the WB in post if you shoot in RAW. There's just more information in a RAW file (~1.5mb in a jpg to ~8mb in RAW).

 

[MICKEY88]

You CAN adjust the WB in a jpg, but not to the same degree. There's alot more flexibility to adjust levels and the WB in post if you shoot in RAW. There's just more information in a RAW file (~1.5mb in a jpg to ~8mb in RAW).

yep said that in post 6

a common misconception, you can indeed adjust white balance with a jpeg,


you might not have as much latitude, but as wtih anything else, the better your exposure etc, the better the file you are working with to begin with, the less adjustment is needed

 

[Groucho]

I'm sure it's obvious to everyone, but...

Only shoot RAW if you plan on doing post processing. Shoot JPG if you don't.

I'm sorry but I completely disagree with this. How about this: Only shoot JPG if you don't have enough memory card space, or are taking photos in continuous shooting mode and are filling the buffer too quickly with Raw.

Raw means to never have to worry about white balance again. Raw means that you're futureproofing yourself as much as possible. Raw means that if you get a really special photo, you have the most ability to perfect it later. Raw means that if the photo is underexposed or overexposed, you have more latitude to correct it.

You may not postprocess now, but you might later. Why handicap yourself unnecessarily? To claim that you should be able to pick perfect white balance every time yourself is not unlike claiming that you shouldn't use autofocus as you should be able to manually focus better - heck, AF systems usually make more mistakes than AWB does (outside of tungsten areas.)

I used a couple examples in another thread that I won't repeat (but I think my night shot of the Contemporary from the Poly beach is one of the best examples) - here's another before and after.

How would you make a custom white balance, without swimming out there and climbing it, you wouldn't be able to hold up a gray card in the light that's shining on it. Ditto many other circumstances.

Back on the original question - it was more or less answered, but the Raw saves the "recommended" settings (or the custom settings you've picked), while the jpg has those settings applied already. With RAW, you have the option of accepting the camera's suggest white balance, pick a preset, or do a custom one. Or, Lightroom (and probably others) can do their own "auto" white balance, which works very well in most cases.

If you do shoot jpg, most of the time AWB is just fine, but you'll probably want Tungsten for indoor flashless photos (make sure to change it back to Auto if you use the flash) and also for night photos like of fireworks, buildings, etc.

 

[deletedpenguin]

I'm sorry but I completely disagree with this. How about this: Only shoot JPG if you don't have enough memory card space, or are taking photos in continuous shooting mode and are filling the buffer too quickly with Raw.

Raw means to never have to worry about white balance again. Raw means that you're futureproofing yourself as much as possible. Raw means that if you get a really special photo, you have the most ability to perfect it later. Raw means that if the photo is underexposed or overexposed, you have more latitude to correct it.

You may not postprocess now, but you might later. Why handicap yourself unnecessarily? To claim that you should be able to pick perfect white balance every time yourself is not unlike claiming that you shouldn't use autofocus as you should be able to manually focus better - heck, AF systems usually make more mistakes than AWB does (outside of tungsten areas.)

There's that example as well, but I'm not sure how you're "completely disagreeing with me.". I was giving one example of many as to why RAW is better than JPG. There are alot of people on here that don't have the time, resources, know how, or just don't care to post process their photos, and those people should not shoot in RAW. RAW does not auto correct the color, does not sharpen, or AWB "in camera", while JPG does. This is what those aforementioned people would need.

 

[MICKEY88]

there is a really simple solution for those who choose to shoot jpeg...

simply take a few test shots with each wb setting and see which one looks most natural.on your lcd screen

not sure about other cameras but my 7d even allows me to go into setting it by color temperature, from 2500 -9500K

one other thought that seems to escaped this and the custom wb thread...thread, not all cameras have the option of shooting raw..

 

[Anewman]

RAW does not auto correct the color, does not sharpen, or AWB "in camera", while JPG does.

There many software options that allow AUTO everything, but you are correct they are not in-camera.

Still I do NOT feel that converting raw files equals POST-processing, if they have never been processed I can not call it "POST".

 

[MICKEY88]

There many software options that allow AUTO everything, but you are correct they are not in-camera.

Still I do NOT feel that converting raw files equals POST-processing, if they have never been processed I can not call it "POST".

my interpretation is...post processing means processing after the image leaves the camera , rather than in camera, as a jpeg is processed by the cameras software.., so converting would be post processing..

if they had been processed before it would be reprocessing..

 

[Anewman]

my interpretation is...post processing means processing after the image leaves the camera , rather than in camera, as a jpeg is processed by the cameras software.., so converting would be post processing..

That cool, I guess I am just old school. I still have some 35mm film that left the camera years ago, if I were to take it to the lab I would not consider it post-processing.

 

[deletedpenguin]

my interpretation is...post processing means processing after the image leaves the camera , rather than in camera, as a jpeg is processed by the cameras software.., so converting would be post processing..

if they had been processed before it would be reprocessing..

That cool, I guess I am just old school. I still have some 35mm film that left the camera years ago, if I were to take it to the lab I would not consider it post-processing.

I feel as if you're both right. The idea of post processing has definitely changed over the years, with the onslaught of digital cameras.

 

[Master Mason]

it also said once you get home, which I interpretted to mean once you upload the pic to your pc, you can change the wb on raw, but not on jpeg..

why can't you start over with your original data on a jpeg,

I always work with a copy, and then do a save copy as, so I never lose my original file..

you can't start over, because with jpeg, the camera makes decisions and then tosses information away, with raw, it saves all that infomation.

you can't go back, if you don't have all the information. yes you can adjust, but it is not going back to the original, it is going back to some smaller subset of the original.

think of the RAW as your negative. In the film world you could take a print, make copies,, adjust etc... but you would never do that if you could have worked with the negative instead.