|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
RAW, white balance, and modern tools
Disclaimer: I'm JUST talking about white balance. Yes I know there are other reasons for RAW: greater bit depth in higher end cameras, etc, etc. Forget about those for a bit  I noticed this oddity. Back in the day (and even now in some instances), some photo editing tools ONLY let you adjust white balance, if you were working with a RAW image file. However, nowadays, tools let you tweak white balance even if you are working off JPG or any other image format. (for example, GIMP lets you adjust color temperature, with a tool that lets you specify original vs intended temperature.) So I was curious. If you find yourself in a situation where you only care about good white balance adjustment, is there really any reason to care about RAW vs highquality JPG format? May 24 18 01:27 pm Link Some programs adjust white balance with an eye dropper tool and some use sliders. I like the eye dropper method best. I've never contrasted results from JPG vs RAW with the same image. Both are possible. JPG vs RAW? Either one as long as I have the eye dropper tool. May 24 18 01:34 pm Link Mark Salo wrote: A bit of trivia then, for people like yourself: May 24 18 02:06 pm Link Shooting RAW in that situation is advantageous, but may not be necessary. Whenever you alter a jpg, you run the risk of creating banding - both by running it through a second compression algorithm, and by possibly shifting towards colors that aren't supposed to be in the initial color space. RAW doesn't have a color space, and isn't (usually) compressed - so alterations won't create banding unless they're pretty extreme; any "missing" colors will be shifted to fit by the jpg save engine. You'll probably never see a difference making small WB tweaks, but very much could making large ones. So you don't NEED to shoot RAW if those are your only edits ... But if you're running the software already, and there's space on the card, I would. May 24 18 03:21 pm Link Philip Brown wrote: Yeah, GIMP has some anomalies. I'm fully convinced they do it on purpose, to help keep Adobe off their backs. May 24 18 03:22 pm Link Philip Brown wrote: That's good to know. I often want to pick a white point for the red channel. May 24 18 03:29 pm Link OP, I would suggest you use RAW especially for your location shots. I rarely if ever shoot RAW. The cost outweigh the benefits for how I work. However if you aren't using RAW its worth trying out and not just for white balance. I found it taxing on my old laptops and again didn't benefit my work flow. I ended with with gigs of images I never used as well. Your new used camera may have an option to save as RAW and Jpeg. See if you can see a difference or if it helps you. I suggested it for your location work based on what I see in how you shoot. May 24 18 03:57 pm Link Zack Zoll wrote: Disclaimer: I've only shot on one RAW capable camera so far: my sony RX100m2 May 24 18 04:02 pm Link I'm not about to argue what's better when it comes to personal preference - I can just tell you what is, and let that be that. Knowing that you use a compact camera, I can tell you that banding is a more likely issue than with a DSLR. On the other hand ... Considering the way compact cameras are used, and the inherent 'shit happens' aspect of them, it's also less likely to really matter. So a bit of a wash, really. May 24 18 04:16 pm Link Tony Lawrence wrote: Interesting. Might you give me a bit more pointed suggestion, Tony? It seems like you had some specific aspect of the photos in mind? May 24 18 04:38 pm Link Philip Brown wrote: That's because the in-camera jpg bakes in the white balance, saturation, sharpness, contrast, etc where the RAWs are, well, raw. If you are converting directly RAW to JPG, it's usually going to be bland compared to the in-camera version of it. May 24 18 04:57 pm Link oh.. i forgot that "sharpness" was an optional tunable. wierd stuff... May 24 18 05:20 pm Link Even if you only plan on using the Jpeg images, if your camera allows you the option of saving a copy in both Jpeg and RAW, then I'd suggest that option. Because one day, and it will eventually happen, when things go REALLY wrong, the ability to recover (and often, do it well) using the RAW files, can save your butt. Plus much later, down the road, you may find that you become a virtuoso at getting so much more from your shots using RAW. You then have the best of your "old stuff" available to be re-imagined from RAW, should you choose to do so. Worst case? If you never need the RAW copy, then great. All it costs you is some digital storage space. And these days storage space is awfully cheap... May 24 18 08:21 pm Link LightDreams wrote: Hm... May 24 18 08:51 pm Link Try looking at the problem this way: the highest quality jpeg that your camera can produce is only about half the size of the raw file. In other words, conversion to jpeg is achieved by discarding at least half of the original information, so whether you shoot jpeg or raw is largely a matter of deciding how likely you are to want the information that gets discarded. If you are shooting in a situation where you can be reasonably confident that you are close to the correct/desired white balance, jpeg should be fine. On the other hand, if your white balance is really off, even the best quality jpeg will not match what you could have extracted from the raw file. May 25 18 09:07 pm Link Rob Photosby wrote: That's not true. Jpeg is a compression method, not just a data junker. Basically, if it has a big area of black then instead of storing thousands of black pixels it will store a notation saying "This area is black". May 26 18 02:36 am Link thiswayup wrote: Yup. You can take a raw, and put it through zero loss jpeg compression, and come back with an image that is still only half the size of the raw. May 26 18 01:39 pm Link Philip Brown wrote: Actually there is a 16 bit version of JPEG. Although it would be pretty pointless to use in a camera. May 26 18 03:03 pm Link The best way to think if lossless compression is this: if a file reads 01100001, the lossless version reads 012041. Still shorter, but not at short as actually compressing. There have been many tests that show lossless compression isn't actually lossless, but to be honest you basically have to shoot for the flaws to even notice them. Like, street lights on dark nights look ever so slightly worse if you zoom to 100%. May 26 18 05:40 pm Link Zack Zoll wrote: That makes no sense. Or rather, its dishonesty by the people claiming it is lossless. May 26 18 07:07 pm Link Philip Brown wrote: Good luck with that... May 27 18 08:51 am Link When I started seriously with digital photography storage was expensive and converting raw files (actually even just viewing them in a Windows folder!) was cumbersome. Now that's not the case. Once I started shooting raw I realized how limiting jpeg is. Like when I accidentally left my wb on tungsten. With Lightroom and cheap massive memory cards I can't think of a single reason to shoot jpeg and throw away all the extra bits of information that my cameras capture. Jun 07 18 01:12 am Link Philip Brown wrote: 1) https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19814684 Philip Brown wrote: I don't know how you compare but what you see in your raw conversion programs is usually the converted image, not the actual raw data. To see the actual raw data you must use something like dcraw, libraw, RawDigger, RawTherapee. Popular raw converters show you only the developed result. And of course - JPG will always look "better", that's deliberate and the whole point. Additionally camera manufacturers boost it to look as good as possible. But it is that "ugliness" of the raw data that makes it so powerful for high quality post-production because the moment you compress the original data with a gamma curve and saturate it - you have already squashed the original channels to a point of no return. Add to that the lossy nature of JPG (which applies even at "100%"). So don't let your camera (manufacturer) to play smarter than you. Jun 07 18 06:35 am Link In reading this discussion which invitably addressed the virtues of raw, in adding to it, I would like to explain to you what a raw image is, as it is the same image you see on your camera screen. Years ago, ALDUS invented Tiff, and then ADOBE acquired ALDUS. Tiff is very useful for printing. In commercial jobs working with graphic artists my experience is that they love to have the files delivered as TIFFs. Adobe controls TIFF. Nikon, Canon, and other camera makers needed a way around Adobe's monopoly, and also to hide data from other manufacturers. So the image that you like to call Raw is actually a proprietary version of Tiff, a Tiff-like file. It easily converts into Tiff. And Adobe does allow private control of Tiffs. To see the TIFF-like image properly it is best to use the camera manufacturer's own software. I shoot Nikon, and the NEF files (Nikon's proprietary TIFF-like files) are easily and accurately displayed by the View NX2 software and they are what you see on your LCD screen,. When you open Nikon files in View NX2--which is downloadable, the NEF and JPG files look the same. I think you'll find that for free you can download any camera manfacture's software that reads their proprietary file. Here's a Wikipedia article on Tiff that is comprehensive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIFF When you read about TIFF files you'll understand why many photographers choose to shoot in the Camera Maker's proprietary version. In beauty I shoot in Nikon's private version of TIFF and then I converted easily into. . . Adobe's Tiff. I shoot in FLAT mode which gives me more control over highlights and shadows. Here's what Nikon says about that choice: "Flat* provides minimal dramatization while preserving the material characteristics. Compared with Neutral, the finish shows less contrast and does not look lively as it is. When you add adjustment to the image after shooting, overblown highlights, blocked up shadows, or excessive color saturations rarely occur, thus enabling rich tonality of both brightness and color tones. With the wealth of information from highlight to shadow areas, this mode is recommended when you are shooting a scene with post-shoot adjusting in mind." Jun 07 18 07:33 am Link LA StarShooter wrote: No, this is wrong (although I wish it wasn't). What you see on the camera screen is a JPG preview generated by the camera software (and often embedded in the raw file too). That's the main reason for which we need tricks like UniWB. Jun 07 18 08:40 am Link RAW can be a nightmare as all editing software differs in their processing of some manufacturers who use proprietary info not available to third parties so some software makers take "A best guess approach" and then the output looks different. I often use the manufacture's software first making a TIFF, and then play around with whatever. RAW can have so many hidden things to correct: CA and lens aberrations, color fringing/casts and vignetting of certain lenses, dynamic range alterations, noise reductions, etc. that some third-party software doesn't read right hence the need to use the manufactures software first. Probably why just reading the Kelvin and tints via eyedroppers seems to differ a lot among various software, some by 1K Kelvin too. Video RAW can be another nightmare as some video cameras can output a bunch of different RAW formats. I was shocked to see how many RAW variations were buried inside Davinci Studio 14 and it seems to be growing rather than shrinking. On the white balance, I almost always use a color temperature meter to set my camera baseline, and then go from there via filters if needed. I have to use a CC05 or 10 Green filter on my video camera as the thing has a magenta tint in using its manual white balance where the auto is better although it varies with the scene. That tint can be a nightmare to balance as it isn't always as linear with the other colors so crossover occurs on output where a shadow may have a magenta tint and the highlights green. If I delve into the RGB curves, they are all over the place and almost impossible to null. The NIK software allows for some color corrections in spots with still photos, but it gets tedious (e.g. A white wedding dress where shoulders are sky blue, bottom is grass green, skin another odd color, reflected red bricks off to the side of the dress, etc.). Good luck! Jun 07 18 08:53 am Link anchev wrote: Actually it is a correct representation of the TIFF-based file file visually. As stated further Tiff and JPEG look the same. That image on the screen represents the raw image visually. It doesn't matter that it is a jpeg. If you shoot in raw and no other such as jpeg you will see that representatation. What you don't get is that raw and jpeg look the same in the camera software.Your claim that you need other stuff is wrong as there is Nikon the flat setting. For the OP: he's claiming that to get an accurate histogram you have to set your jpg settings so the image looks greenISH in your LCD viewfinder but this will give a proper histogram. Jun 07 18 09:02 am Link LA StarShooter wrote: Could you explain how you 'shoot in Flat' as I don't see that as an option on any of my Nikon cameras. I only see Raw and combinations of jpegs. Jun 07 18 10:10 am Link LA StarShooter wrote: I don't know based on what you claim that, considering that camera firmware is proprietary (closed software). Unless you are the programmer you can't really say that for a fact. But the fact is - JPG previews take less memory, less data is processed (and displayed) faster, JPG previews are also embedded in the raw files. So based on this logic - I would rather assume that the camera shows JPG. That image on the screen represents the raw image visually. No, it does not. It doesn't matter that it is a jpeg. It does matter a lot. Use dcraw and convert a raw file directly (without demosaic, color matrix, white balance or gamma curve) and you will see what raw looks like. Totally different. If you shoot in raw and no other such as jpeg you will see that representatation. Not true. Two different raw files can give the same JPG (visually). Simple example: exposure +/- 1EV (considering no clipping). What you don't get is that raw and jpeg look the same in the camera software.Your claim that you need other stuff is wrong as there is Nikon the flat setting. For the OP: he's claiming that to get an accurate histogram you have to set your jpg settings so the image looks greenISH in your LCD viewfinder but this will give a proper histogram. I don't know what "flat setting" of Nikon you mean. For the moment the only camera software which I have heard to show raw histogram is Magic Lantern and (AFAIK partially) the firmware of the new 100mpx P1 backs. When I produce NEF files in View NX2 the files match what you see on the LCD. That is because Nikon's firmware and Nikon's desktop software use the same conversion algorithm. Still that does not make it raw. As I don't use an histogram when I shoot its not important to me to gaze in awe at it. As stated I shoot in Flat. If you don't check your histogram while shooting, this means you are not exposing to the right = you are not using the best of what your camera can do = you reduce the technical quality of the final result. The only thing that really matters while shooting is composition, focus and ETTR. Everything else is post. As a retoucher Anchev you might want to read up on Nikon's Flat and how it handles clipping. No need to. I shoot with Canon and I process raw data from all kinds of cameras using libraw. If someone provides Nikon files it is up to them to have them properly exposed. Jun 07 18 10:19 am Link Philip Brown wrote: There is the problem. You need more experience shooting in RAW and editing to understand. Jun 08 18 02:43 pm Link I only work in NEF or RAW with D800s At the start of most shoots I do a custom white balance and then the first frame is a color chart. Most of my work is corporate using over 4000 watts of strobe. Jun 11 18 10:10 pm Link Red Sky Photography wrote: Canon calls it 'neutral' Jun 12 18 03:37 am Link You can see what actual raw image data looks like on this link (people have shared a few samples): https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3495861 Jun 12 18 05:13 am Link I shoot primarily corporate events with a D5 and D810 backup/secondary. The D5 does a really outstanding job with auto white balance but sometimes it gets it wrong, especially when there are things like an LCD screen in the shot. Many of the rooms I shoot in have horrible lighting, terrible colors on the wallpaper, etc., and the white balance in the camera can be WAY off because of that, so post-processing is a must. The beauty is, once you fix it with the eyedropper in LR on one photo, it's easy to batch out the WB with all the subsequent photos shot in the room after that. Jun 12 18 06:31 am Link BCADULTART wrote: I also shoot a lot of corporate stuff from executive portraits to business lifestyle. I can't imagine carrying or using 4000 watts of power. Maybe if I am lighting up a 12 wide white seamless but outside of that, one or two of my Dyna-lite 1,000watt packs cover it all. Jun 12 18 07:28 am Link BCADULTART wrote: Strobes specs are in watt seconds. Jun 12 18 02:30 pm Link FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote: Apparently only on D810 and cameras produced after the 810,not on my cameras. Jun 12 18 05:49 pm Link Zave Smith Photography wrote: I shoot 64 iso 4x5 at f/11ish with around 900 w/s. I don't know why I could possibly need 4000, unless it was all bounced off the wall behind me. Even going to 16 (which I wish I could) would still only be 1800 Jun 15 18 07:16 pm Link If you are shooting high school and college marching bands with about 300-500 people standing on the bleachers in the middle of the day and you have about 10-20 rows then you would be glad to have 4000W/S strobes. There is a need for that much power. I used to assist a photographer who was doing that a few months of the year and you need that much juice to be able to get F/16 from the front row to the back row. In corporate photography, you might need them too. I have shot large groups for corporations using 1000W/S and I am always wishing I had more power. Jun 16 18 02:04 pm Link Voy wrote:
Jun 16 18 10:08 pm Link |
