RAW file format

[MICKEY88]

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'm old school as well, I don't recall ever hearing the term post processing for film, I think it's a digital term..

 

[MICKEY88]

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.

it is going back to the original that you have, if you only shoot jpeg that is your negative, true some info has been tossed, but if you use the fil mcomparison, a neg that is overexposed or underexposed by too many stops, had also lost info, but it's still your original..

 

[Master Mason]

I'm old school as well, I don't recall ever hearing the term post processing for film, I think it's a digital term..

'

Nope, they called it developing then... with folks doing dodging and burning etc.... The difference is now the average person can do it, where before it took somone with special equipment, and a lot of knowledge, the average person couldn't participate.

 

[Anewman]

I'm old school as well, I don't recall ever hearing the term post processing for film, I think it's a digital term..

And yet film left the CAMERA ready to get sent for processing, but going by your definition that should be called...


Again you are free to call it what you like, but I do remember the term being around in the movie business b4 the digital ERA. Special effects and EDITING were always done in POST, after the film came back from processing... hence Post-processing.

Weren't dodging and burning done with the already processed negatives, IMO that is a perfect example of post-processing.

 

[Master Mason]

it is going back to the original that you have, if you only shoot jpeg that is your negative, true some info has been tossed, but if you use the fil mcomparison, a neg that is overexposed or underexposed by too many stops, had also lost info, but it's still your original..

When you shot film, did you toss the negatives and use your prints to make copies? You could do so and get coppies, but they would never be as good as if you had used the negative.


Jpeg = print
RAW = negative

Your free to disagree, but the majority that I have spoken to would agree with that assesment.

 

[MICKEY88]

When you shot film, did you toss the negatives and use your prints to make copies? You could do so and get coppies, but they would never be as good as if you had used the negative.


Jpeg = print
RAW = negative

Your free to disagree, but the majority that I have spoken to would agree with that assesment.

I'd have to disagree and would find many that would agree with me as well...

raw or jpeg is your neg..

a print is the image when put on paper..

 

[Anewman]

a print is the image when put on paper..

But if that is your only copy, does it become your negative?

 

[MICKEY88]

When you shot film, did you toss the negatives and use your prints to make copies? You could do so and get coppies, but they would never be as good as if you had used the negative.


Jpeg = print
RAW = negative

Your free to disagree, but the majority that I have spoken to would agree with that assesment.

if we're going to use film comparison, maybe this would make sense

raw=medium format negative

jpeg = 35mm negative,

one has more detail than the other but they are both negatives, from which prints are made..

 

[SharonLowe]

Getting back to the original question, I use auto WB alot but will set a custom one/use another when it really matters, and I only shoot raw. I set custom when I am doing portraits since it allows me to get the most accurate skin tones, rather than having to "guess" post. I also set a WB (tungsten) when I am doing night photography so that I can avoid those orange tones.

Why does it matter - if the camera is shooting to a specific white balance, it can affect how it meters off the light in the scene so with your correct WB, you will get a better exposure. Remember, the meter is shooting for a neutral gray so if it is guessing what is neutral, the exposure can be wrong. Yes, you can typically fix it afterwards but I prefer to get things correct the first time around.

In most cases, I use an ExpoDisk (http://www.expoimaging.net/) for setting the white balance - attaches to the lens and records through it so you don't have to walk out into the water to get a good reading. If I don't have my ExpoDisk for some reason, I shoot a gray card and then use that to fix a neutral tone afterwards.

 

[MICKEY88]

And yet film left the CAMERA ready to get sent for processing, but going by your definition that should be called...my definition in the digital era


Again you are free to call it what you like, but I do remember the term being around in the movie business b4 the digital ERA. Special effects and EDITING were always done in POST, after the film came back from processing... hence Post-processing. last I checked we were discussing still photography

Weren't dodging and burning done with the already processed negatives, IMO that is a perfect example of post-processing.

in your opinion OK, I can't debate your opinion, but I've never heard it called anything other than processing or printing...

film was processed to become negatives, then negatives were processed to produce prints...

 

[Anewman]

in your opinion OK, I can't debate your opinion,

Ditto...

You are free to call the conversion process of unprocessed RAW files "post-processing".

film was processed to become negatives, then negatives were processed to prduce prints...

Kinda like RAW data is processed to become a multitude of image formats.

 

[MICKEY88]

But if that is your only copy, does it become your negative?

nope it's a print,
if we really want to get technical, neither raw nor jpegs are a digital negative,

they are a positive...

 

[MICKEY88]

Ditto...

You are free to call the conversion process of unprocessed RAW files "post-processing".



Kinda like RAW data is processed to become a multitude of image formats.

this board is the only place I've ever heard it debated,or stated that taking the image from camera, no matter what format, and doing any work on it whatsoever is not post processing..any other forum I've ever been on, or any article I've ever read calls it post processing,


so I guess we could debate this forever..

 

[deletedpenguin]

I agree, it feels as if we're going in circles.

 

[Anewman]

so I guess we could debate this forever..

So true...

And just to clarify to anyone that might think otherwise, it is all in good fun and I have nothing but respect for my fellow dissers. This is not a fight, just difference of opinion.

 

[MICKEY88]

So true...

And just to clarify to anyone that might think otherwise, it is all in good fun and I have nothing but respect for my fellow dissers. This is not a fight, just difference of opinion.

I agree 100%

 

[MICKEY88]

oh and just for the record, I shoot raw/jpeg just in case...

 

[Anewman]

oh and just for the record, I shoot raw/jpeg just in case...

Pick a side already...

 

[MICKEY88]

Pick a side already...

I never said raw was wrong, just that I prefer to get the best shot possible in camera, to reduce post processing...



this article I just found makes the point for adjusting white balance even when shooting raw...


http://www.ppmag.com/web-exclusives/2007/11/white-balance-the-secret-weapo-1.html

 

[MICKEY88]

this article makes the point for trying to get the best shot possible in camera, to allow for the best raw data for processing..


http://www.oreillynet.com/digitalmedia/blog/2007/06/white_balance_and_the_raw_land.html

That said, it’s best practice not to presume on the kindness of RAW. You should expose each image in-camera as accurately as possible. This avoids potential problems and gives you more options when you do post-process the RAW.

on the flip side it also makes the case for leaving white balance on auto,,,
so sit back and watch me debate with myself...LOL

So the best practice is to leave White Balance set to Automatic. This means that your camera will make some attempt to measure the light temperature, and associate this reading with the image. But associating a White Balance measurement with a RAW image doesn’t actually change the image data itself because the White Balance data is simply set in a tagged text file associated with the RAW file. You can change the White Balance to any Kelvin number you think is appropriate when you convert the image in post-processing. You can do this using a slider, and visually inspect the impact of the change on your photo.