Holy bless the RAW!!!!!!!

[timmyquest]

I shot a basketball game for two bosses this past friday, shot in raw as always. Until tonight i've never fully utilized the capabilities. There were a sequence of shots where my flash decided that it wouldnt fire. The exposier is obviously WAY OFF, and the white balance is horrid!

Yet with RAW and Bibble, they look fantastic, and they are turning out to be a good bunch of shots, i'll have to show you guys the originals and then the post processesed in a while.

[Ranger187]

I shot a basketball game for two bosses this past friday, shot in raw as always. Until tonight i've never fully utilized the capabilities. There were a sequence of shots where my flash decided that it wouldnt fire. The exposier is obviously WAY OFF, and the white balance is horrid!

Yet with RAW and Bibble, they look fantastic, and they are turning out to be a good bunch of shots, i'll have to show you guys the originals and then the post processesed in a while.

Yeah, I'm a noob when it comes to working outside the auto mode...

So how do you process the RAW ones if you don't mind?

[FlyingPete]

I shot a basketball game for two bosses this past friday, shot in raw as always. Until tonight i've never fully utilized the capabilities. There were a sequence of shots where my flash decided that it wouldnt fire. The exposier is obviously WAY OFF, and the white balance is horrid!

Yet with RAW and Bibble, they look fantastic, and they are turning out to be a good bunch of shots, i'll have to show you guys the originals and then the post processesed in a while.

I got in some stick the other day where RAW would have saved the day, I was shooting in unsual lighting conditions (an aquarium) with no good white reference, the auto white balance didn't do a very good job at all!

The other thing is when exposure compensation is bumped without you knowing, had the odd issue with that, I am sure that RAW with its higher exposure latitude would have saved the day!

[Andy_T]

So how do you process the RAW ones if you don't mind?

That's what half of the posts in the post processing and printing forum are about... take a look there!

There's even a 'workflow' sticky that makes a very interesting read.

Best regards,
Andy

[elm54]

I'm just wondering. Has anybody tried using the custom white balance when shooting in these unusual lighting situations? When I shot my D60 stuff I was using flash and tungsten lighting . I took a picture of a white card and then used it for custom white balance. The white balance worked out pretty well.
Any other stories?

Eric

[tim]

I was under the impression that you didn't bother with white ballance when you're shooting raw, and that you do it later in bibble/photoshop/etc. Am I wrong? I have a RAW workflow on its way from Amazon which should teach me a thing or two, but it's not here yet.

[Reminisce]

When I shoot in RAW mode i dont worry about white balance, I just try to make sure I have a decent exposure, even if under or overexposed, but close enough to what I want, since in RAW processing you can pretty much adjust the lighting however you want in a curve without ruining the brightness/contrast of the photo.
You also have an almost infinite way of doing your own white balancing in Photoshop using RAW files. My only problem now is I need a bigger card than the 512 with my 20D, hehe. Can only shoot 50+ shots in RAW

[timmyquest]

I'm just wondering. Has anybody tried using the custom white balance when shooting in these unusual lighting situations? When I shot my D60 stuff I was using flash and tungsten lighting . I took a picture of a white card and then used it for custom white balance. The white balance worked out pretty well.
Any other stories?

Eric


I did the other night, i think it's just too hard to base it simply off the LCD. I was able to get close though.

Do they make any sort of meter that can give you the kelvin of the ambiant light??


PS
You can be lazy and not do the white balance, but it's just going to cause more work in the end.

[defordphoto]

I was under the impression that you didn't bother with white ballance (sic) when you're shooting raw...

Alot of people think that and so did I until I read an in-depth article covering RAW in DPP mag awhile back. You should always attempt to shoot the photo properly the first time. I don't know if anyone has pixel-peeped this issue with comparisons, but you do have to admit it does make sense. If your original is too far off then there is no software that can recover it, so it seems that even missing it a little would still affect the quality of the photo. Maybe not discernibly to most of the people on the planet, but still, it makes sense.

On the other hand, even though I do try to shoot the shot right the first time, I do rely on post-processing to "correct" and improperly exposed shot sometimes—like most of the people on the planet. ;)

[tim]

I thought RAW just stored the data that hit the sensor, with no processing at all, so processing could be done on a PC? What good is it as a digital negative if the software in the camera messes with it before it's saved to the CF card? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Jpgs are processed to make sure white looks white, plus they're sharpened.

[timmyquest]

I thought RAW just stored the data that hit the sensor, with no processing at all, so processing could be done on a PC? What good is it as a digital negative if the software in the camera messes with it before it's saved to the CF card? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Jpgs are processed to make sure white looks white, plus they're sharpened.

The camear doesnt do anything to the image. perhaps a google of white balance would help you understand this all a little better?

[tim]

The camear doesnt do anything to the image. perhaps a google of white balance would help you understand this all a little better?

That was my point - with RAW nothing's done to the image, whereas with JPG white ballance is altered and the image is sharpened. Is that correct or incorrect?

I have a whole book on RAW turning up soon, too, mainly around workflow but it should cover pretty much everything.

[timmyquest]

That was my point - with RAW nothing's done to the image, whereas with JPG white ballance is altered and the image is sharpened. Is that correct or incorrect?

I have a whole book on RAW turning up soon, too, mainly around workflow but it should cover pretty much everything.


I guess i have to do the searching for you http://www.photoxels.com/tutorial_white-balance.html

[tim]

I guess i have to do the searching for you http://www.photoxels.com/tutorial_white-balance.html

That comes over as quite offensive timmyquest. It would have been easier to have answered my question, which the answer to is yes, i'm am correct, when you shoot in raw white ballance is ignored. Quote from that article:


RAW File Format

A discussion in WB would not be complete without a mention of the RAW file format available in many advanced digital cameras. When you save an image in RAW file format, you are saving it the way the image sensor sees it -- without applying any adjustments (including white balance) to it. In fact, the camera ignores any WB setting you dial in.

[timmyquest]

And you could have found that information had you searched.

The camera applies white balance to the image but you're still able to adjust it in the exact same way that the camera does.

There has to be a white balance, or kelvin number. It's an aspect of the image. To have no white kelvin number applied ot an image would be like not having light in an image.

So, you might as well set it to turn whites white.

[defordphoto]

I thought RAW just stored the data that hit the sensor, with no processing at all, so processing could be done on a PC? What good is it as a digital negative if the software in the camera messes with it before it's saved to the CF card? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Jpgs are processed to make sure white looks white, plus they're sharpened.

There is a tiny bit of sharpening done and that is all. That is not what I was referring to in my post. What I am saying that if your photo is too far off, it will not be recoverable.

[PacAce]

That was my point - with RAW nothing's done to the image, whereas with JPG white ballance is altered and the image is sharpened. Is that correct or incorrect?

I have a whole book on RAW turning up soon, too, mainly around workflow but it should cover pretty much everything.
You are absolutely correct. When it comes to shooting RAW, it doesn't really matter what WB setting you set it at because you can change that on the fly when you convert. However, having said that, that not mean that you will automatically be able to match the actual white balance of the original lighting when you go to post process the RAW image. It you want an accurate white balance reproduction of the original lighting, then what you need to do is shoot a white or a gray card (filling the whole frame) and use it to set your custom white balance.

But to be honest with your, I just set my camera to AWB and just take it from there. :)

[tim]

And you could have found that information had you searched.

There's still no need for rudeness. You probably didn't meant it to be, but i've found (the hard way) you have to be careful about how you come across on the net and on email. I have no need of an argument on an internet board, i'd rather make friends who can help educate me.

I was asking a question as I thought I knew the answer but I wanted it confirmed, but i'm new around here and to this subject and i'd rather have my facts right. There still seems to be a disagreement in this thread about exactly what happens, although i've pretty much made up my mind what I think happens. The link you posted and PacAce both say nothing is done in-camera when shooting RAW, which agrees with everything else i've read. I have to guess the color temperature is a function of the sensor, rather than something that's applied in software, but that's a pure guess. Given that no processing is done, I don't see many other options. There must be some assumptions made for the thumbnail preview that's done, though.

[timmyquest]

Your not really listening to what i said.

You cant not have a white balance set. It has to be something, IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING.

So why not get it set right, it only takes a second.

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/White_Balance_01.htm

And as was stated before, no matter what, if it's too far off, the corrected image will not look as good as it could have.

[Rudix]

If you get the white balance "wrong" in RAW there is no penalty for adjusting it on the PC, you can (with the software I use anyway) cover the whole range of white balances so there is no danger of having an image you cannot recover.

I take a lot of action shots, both nature and sport/airshow/motorsport and there is normally no time to play with white balance. I simply leave white balance on auto and do any correction later. I must say that I very seldom have to make any corrections with my current cameras !

I only shoot RAW since there is always that chance that you get that photo of a lifetime and you loose it because you did not shoot RAW. The additional flexablility you get makes it worthwile.

I also don't like to have any jpg compression artifacts intoduced in my photos, you might just end up with the great photo and the publisher wants it in TIFF format, yes, you can convert from jpg to tiff but you end up converting the compression artifacts as well ! Once the photo is taken I can convert to jpg for general use or web use but then it is my choice.

I know many people shoot jpg but once you are used to RAW and you have seen the advantages you won't easely go back !

[tim]

Your not really listening to what i said.

You cant not have a white balance set. It has to be something, IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING.

So why not get it set right, it only takes a second.

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/White_Balance_01.htm

And as was stated before, no matter what, if it's too far off, the corrected image will not look as good as it could have.

I am listening to what you say, i'm trying to reconcile it with the information you linked to that says "In fact, the camera ignores any WB setting you dial in [in raw]".

I just tried it myself, and you're absolutely right, changing the white ballance when shooting in RAW does indeed make a difference to the image. That first link seems to be completely incorrect. I understand that we can alter the white ballance using photoshop with no loss of quality, which is handy.

Thanks for your persistence :)

[Ranger187]

That's what half of the posts in the post processing and printing forum are about... take a look there!

There's even a 'workflow' sticky that makes a very interesting read.

Best regards,
Andy

Thanks bro, I'll check that out!

[PacAce]

And as was stated before, no matter what, if it's too far off, the corrected image will not look as good as it could have.TImmy, I could be going on the limb with what I"m about to say but I don't agree with the above statement of yours. If you are shooting raw, there is nothing to "correct" as far as white balance is concerned. It's just a matter of setting it to one or another WB setting. Whatever it is set to in post-processing will be just like if the WB had been set in the camera.

However, if you are referring to shooting in JPEG and then trying to correct the WB, then I would totally agree with you.

[PhotosGuy]

Do they make any sort of meter that can give you the kelvin of the ambiant light??
Yes, but you don't need it. CustomWB does it for you.
You can be lazy and not do the white balance, but it's just going to cause more work in the end.
You have that right. It gives you a "known" starting point for the RAW processing. Just be sure that you end up with a gray image when you shoot the card. A blown image won't have enough information for the WB function.
I just tried it myself, and you're absolutely right, changing the white balance when shooting in RAW does indeed make a difference to the image.
I'm still amazed by the people (not just you, Tim) who ask questions instead of trying it out for themselves to see what is really going on. :wink: Digital gives us all the chance to try things out & we should all do more of it. For instance, other people still like AutoWB, but if they tested it under artificial light, they'd see just how bad it really is. Instead, they quote a source that says "this works OK", or "quote" their results without seeing a side by side comparison. Yes, it's OK, & I can't speak from the perspective of the people with the higher-end cams, but speaking for the 300D, it isn't "right". I just don't understand the (lack of) thought behind buying a $1,000+ camera & not taking the 30 seconds of time to get the most out of it. [OK, end of rant!]
Re: Holy bless the RAW!!!!!!!
I just LOVE it, too!

[Scottes]

And as was stated before, no matter what, if it's too far off, the corrected image will not look as good as it could have.

Given your rude comments above, it really amazes me that you actually think you know what you're talking about. Go do a search on RAW files, and then come back.

[PhotosGuy]

Timmy, clean out your mailbox!

[timmyquest]

Given your rude comments above, it really amazes me that you actually think you know what you're talking about. Go do a search on RAW files, and then come back.


i'm speaking from expereience

At a recent basketball game i shot a sequence of shots were on the "kelvin setting" which was in the 9800 range (i was switching and action came towards me so i started shooting). The shots obviously looked fine afterwards, but when compared to the images that were on AWB or shot with a kelvin setting closer to the actually temp of the gyms light, they did not look as good.

I'm not trying to tell you they couldnt, it just takes a hell of a lot more work and patients with those damn sliders. All my point is that if you shoot it right, or as close to right as you can, the first time. Your photos will always look better.