Frustrated with RAW! Please help!!

[Field of 33]

I am brand new at shooting RAW and I am really not satisfied with the results of my pictures. Below is an example. I thought I did everything "right". I shot in manual and tried to push the histogram as much to the right as possible with clipping any of the detail. Even doing so, many of my images have R, G, or B, that are pushed pretty far to the left. When I go to doing PP, I'm just not getting the results I want. Something just looks really "off".

In the photos below, the first shot is essentially the RAW image converted directly to JPEG with no PP. The second image is my best attempt at PP the first image. As you can see, by the time I get my son's face correctly exposed, I lose all the detail in the background. That big dark blob in the upper left 1/3 is a toy box. In the original, it has a nice cherry finish to it. In the processed photo, it's pretty indistinguishable.

If someone can please point me along a better path, I would be very grateful. Upon request, I would happily try to find a way to get a copy of the RAW file to someone so they can work with it directly.

BTW, the only RAW program I have at my disposal is PSP X and I don't really like the control on it (likely because I don't know how to use them well and what I do know how to use, I don't get good results from).

http://lh4.ggpht.com/Indy1911/SE4CMeAsFwI/AAAAAAAAA7I/ne9QDTzFKSM/s800/IMG_3987.jpg

http://lh4.ggpht.com/Indy1911/SE4CtDW9aXI/AAAAAAAAA7Q/Cs_rq0GL6YA/s800/IMG_3987_DPP.JPG

[rabidcow]

What was you White Balance set too?

[LeeSC]

The first looks like a very well exposed photo that needs very little processing.

Also, don't worry about losing detail or clipping in the background.

[Field of 33]

What was you White Balance set too?
In DPP, I used the color dropper to pull the white off the reflection in his eye. It was the whitest point I could find in the picture and seemed to get it "close".

[rabidcow]

Yes, but what was the in camera white balance set to?

[[AP]Red]

What was you White Balance set too?

What does the WB have to do with your exposure value? I believe that it doesnt make any difference.

The problem lies in that most of the image is flooded with low values of RGB. The only thing that should register to "right" is the babies face.

Hope that helps, Aloha,
John

[[AP]Red]

The exposure looks correct for the first one. Crop it tight to the babies face and then ytou'll see a much more "correct" histo.

John

[rabidcow]

Proper WB can make or break skin tones. OP states that R,G, or B are pushed left, this indicates a WB issue. Exposure is important, but the wrong WB can make a properly exposed image look under or over.

[Field of 33]

Yes, but what was the in camera white balance set to?
The camera was probably set to AWB because that's what I always used when shooting JPEG. My understanding, though, is that the camera WB doesn't effect a RAW image. Am I wrong in that?

Red;5693588']
The problem lies in that most of the image is flooded with low values of RGB. The only thing that should register to "right" is the babies face.

You're exactly right. Most of my RAW images seem to have most of their RGB data crammed on the very left side of the histogram. What can I do to help this situation?

[[AP]Red]

Proper WB can make or break skin tones. OP states that R,G, or B are pushed left, this indicates a WB issue. Exposure is important, but the wrong WB can make a properly exposed image look under or over.

WB can be corrected at anytime along the process. It will NOT change the exposure level far enough to bring his Histo back to the right.

As i stated before, the RGB values are clumped on the left because of 70% of the frame being filled with values 128 or less.

John

[[AP]Red]

You're exactly right. Most of my RAW images seem to have most of their RGB data crammed on the very left side of the histogram. What can I do to help this situation?

I dont think you need any help. The babies face was properly exposed. Thats the most important part of the image. The background is just a side effect of properly exposing the face. If you wanted to show more "fill" on the background then you could add a fill flash or window lite. I dont think its necessary though. I see a good shot that could actually use some strategic cropping.

John

[Field of 33]

Red;5693656']I dont think you need any help. The babies face was properly exposed. Thats the most important part of the image. The background is just a side effect of properly exposing the face. If you wanted to show more "fill" on the background then you could add a fill flash or window lite. I dont think its necessary though. I see a good shot that could actually use some strategic cropping.

John
Thanks for your help. Do you think that the processed picture, #2, is an improvement to the original picture or should I have basically left the first one alone. Personally, I like the second because I'm a fan of deep, bold colors, which I get in the second photo - particularly around the eyes, mouth, and hair. Maybe I was just looking for a magazine quality photo but need to realize that i have to crawl before I run. :D

How might you suggest cropping? Anything in the background that you think would add to the pictures or would a tight centered crop on his face work best?

[rabidcow]

My understanding, though, is that the camera WB doesn't effect a RAW image. Am I wrong in that?

That is an incorrect assumption made by those who would rather post process than shoot it right the first time. It is a pet peeve of mine. WB CAN be corrected to a certain degree in PP, assuming that you have a great neutral in the shot, and a perfectly calibrated monitor, and a great eye for WB. Seriously, I HATE the "fix it in PP" answer. Correct WB from the start yields better images.

Your first image is slightly blue with too much magenta. The PP WB fix issued too much yellow and a tinge of green.

No exposure issue here, your WB is all screwy.

AWB took the beige carpet in the background and made it a great neutral gray, this threw off your entire image.

[rabidcow]

Red;5693638']WB can be corrected at anytime along the process. It will NOT change the exposure level far enough to bring his Histo back to the right.

As i stated before, the RGB values are clumped on the left because of 70% of the frame being filled with values 128 or less.

John

Are you serious? :lol::lol::lol::lol:

[[AP]Red]

Paul,

Unfortunately, Im at work on a Non-Profiled monitor, so i cant really make a choice on the skin tones. I will check it out when i get home and let you know. The bottom line is... Does it look natural? Bold is OK, but oversaturated skin tones dont look good, especially for young ones.

I hope you dont mind some advise... I would say to get off the center AF point on your 40D. Force yourself to use the 4 AF points that fall near the "Rule of Thirds" lines in your view finder. This will force you to compose shots with a little more appeal and not have to crop so much after the fact.

Aloha,
John

[Field of 33]

That is an incorrect assumption made by those who would rather post process than shoot it right the first time. It is a pet peeve of mine. WB CAN be corrected to a certain degree in PP, assuming that you have a great neutral in the shot, and a perfectly calibrated monitor, and a great eye for WB. Seriously, I HATE the "fix it in PP" answer. Correct WB from the start yields better images.

Your first image is slightly blue with too much magenta. The PP WB fix issued too much yellow and a tinge of green.

No exposure issue here, your WB is all screwy.

AWB took the beige carpet in the background and made it a great neutral gray, this threw off your entire image.
So would a grey card significantly improved the "starting point", i.e. the original presentation of the RAW image?

Sorry if i pushed your button on the RAW WB thing. Like I said, I am brand new to RAW and still obviously have TONS to learn about it.

[rabidcow]

You didn't push any buttons Field of 33, [AP]Red did. A gray card combined with custom white balance is a great starting point. Also, learn to use your other WB settings, They all work far better than AWB if you know your light source.

[Field of 33]

Great advice. Thanks to both of your for your help!

[[AP]Red]

Are you serious? :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Are You Serious!?!?!:shock: Just because you dont like it dont make it a viable reason to call someone wrong to process in such a way.

You know what...? I think you're wrong because using 4 emoticons uses too much band width and it slows my connection down!

Much Aloha,
John

[rabidcow]

In all fairness, I need to explain my position here.

I do this for a living. My only source of income is from my photography. I have screwed up as much as or more than I have succeeded. Talk to any honest pro and they will tell you the same thing.

I know the importance of proper WB and exposure. I have screwed it up many times before, and it is the pain of those mistakes that drives me to push others into the world of getting it right the first time.

I do not want to come across as a dick, but the fact is that I cannot support the beginnings of a bad habit. You will only find yourself choking when you need your skill the most if you rely on PP too much.

[[AP]Red]

If you are a pro, then more power to you! thats great, and i wish you all the success possible.

The OP's point about help was about his EV and not WB. Helping him set a custom WB does not explain to him why the Histo is still on the left. If he was asking to correct every facet of photography then going off on different tangents would probably be OK.

Aloha,
John

[rabidcow]

The image suffers no exposure issues, only WB issues. Help where help is needed.

[Titus213]

The image suffers no exposure issues, only WB issues. Help where help is needed.

You know, I looked at that first image and thought - it looks exposed fine, the color is screwed up a bit. I've seen several excellent threads in the Flash/studio area about AWB and the color shifts you get with it. It took a while to sink in but now I always shoot a custom WB if I'm shooting for money and most of the time if I'm shooting for fun. And then I trust my equipment. It just gets it right in the camera. As much as I enjoy post processing fixing color is NOT fun.

Cute kid, decent picture. Understand that shooting RAW is the same as shooting jpg.

[Field of 33]

I just had an opportunity to view this thread on my work computer with a different monitor. It's weird that these two pictures look almost identical on this monitor and the first one actually looks much better than I thought it did. I'm thinking about heading to a photo shop today to pick up a white/gray card. Hopefully that will help my WB situation.

[jenirose3]

Some of the differences btwn jpg and RAW:

RAW:
no noise reduction
no WB
no exposure adj
large file that includes 100% of the image info

jpg:
noise reduction adjustment done by the camera
WB adjustment done by the camera
exposure adjustment done by the camera
small compressed file with only the most recent file info


photogs prefer RAW because they get to make all of the decisions regarding PP not leave it to the camera to make those decisions...plus because the jpg file is compressed and has limited info every time you do some PP'ing on a jpg the file quickly becomes degraded and shows the effects of that....

part of the reason your RAW files don't look as good as a jpg is becasue there is no PP'ing done to a RAW in camera whereas jpg's have some PP'ing done to them in-camera...

but the photog has so much more control over a RAW image....yours look great...the goal is to limit pP'ing and you look like you're well on your way...

[symby]

If you also haven't done this turn off the Smart Photo fix when you load Raw Files in PSP. Under PSP XI its File->Preferences->File Format Preferences (hopefully the same for PSP X). On the General Tab there is a checkbox "Open Camera Raw Images with Smart Photo Fix". The smart photo fix does a good some of the time, but it's basically altering your raw without your knowledge. This is something I didn't know was on by default.

If you've already done this or its already off for you.. then well.. just ignore me. :)

[rabidcow]

Some of the differences btwn jpg and RAW:

RAW:
no noise reduction
no WB
no exposure adj
large file that includes 100% of the image info

jpg:
noise reduction adjustment done by the camera
WB adjustment done by the camera
exposure adjustment done by the camera
small compressed file with only the most recent file info



TRUE.

But the WB info is "tagged" to the RAW file data, which means that when you open the RAW image, the proper WB (embedded in the data file) is applied. Proper WB cuts your PP time and takes the guess work out of the PP equation.

Good points all around though:)

[E-K]

Proper WB can make or break skin tones.

Agreed.

OP states that R,G, or B are pushed left, this indicates a WB issue.

No, it generally means that there is a lot of dark stuff in the image ;).

Exposure is important, but the wrong WB can make a properly exposed image look under or over.

A wrong WB won't make a properly exposed image look under or over but it will have a different overall luminosity than the "correct" WB.

The way WB is typically implemented is that the red and blue channels are multiplied by some value while the green channel remains the same. As a result, the perceived luminosity will necessarily be impacted to some extent.

If you shoot to the meter though, whether internal or external, it's kind of a moot point ;).

e-k

[seed808]

Help where help is needed.

From the begining of this post, to this second page, I would have to agree with AP. I have no idea why you are going off about WB. Nothing to do with what the OP is asking for....

It seems to me that the OP has a better understanding of his situation, than you do by Post #9.

You should pick up UNDERSTANDING EXPOSURE by Bryan Peterson. It is a really great read for beginners, and I think you would really benefit from the wealth of knowledge this book will provide to you. I think it would clear up your issues that you are clearly unaware of...

[rabidcow]

From the begining of this post, to this second page, I would have to agree with AP. I have no idea why you are going off about WB. Nothing to do with what the OP is asking for....

It seems to me that the OP has a better understanding of his situation, than you do by Post #9.

You should pick up UNDERSTANDING EXPOSURE by Bryan Peterson. It is a really great read for beginners, and I think you would really benefit from the wealth of knowledge this book will provide to you. I think it would clear up your issues that you are clearly unaware of...

The image suffers no exposure error. Only WB error.

Take a look at the attached image. Same exposure but different WB on each. The change in WB makes the image appear to be darker of lighter because as stated above the R and B channels are shifted left or right. This DOES impact apparent exposure (luminosity as stated above). If ALL (R, G, and B) channels were pushed left then it would be an exposure issue, but as the OP stated, it is the R, G, OR B channels, indicating that WB shift is the cause.

I am going off about WB because it is the only issue here. The problem needs to be understood, I know that I am abrasive, but aside, the info is good.

[symby]

Field of 33, have you tried installing the Canon software for processing your RAW files?

[shadowcat]

I done a little work on it with PE6 see how you like it.

[mod note (Pekka): you may not repost OP's photos because OP has not allowed image editing in his User CP]

[E-K]

In DPP, I used the color dropper to pull the white off the reflection in his eye. It was the whitest point I could find in the picture and seemed to get it "close".

Be careful. The reflection looks somewhat specular and could be blown which would through off your WB if you used it.

e-k

[seed808]

The image suffers no exposure error. Only WB error.

Hmmmm.... Dont know where I stated in my quote that he suffered from exposure error. Could you point that out? The exposure looks fine to me....

The book's title may be misleading. It also teaches you about reading Histograms, WB, exposure.... the whole nine. Highly recommended.

[[AP]Red]

WOW, This ninja is still preaching about WB!? hahahaha, Good stuff right here!

Aloha,
John

[rabidcow]

Red;5697325']WOW, This ninja is still preaching about WB!? hahahaha, Good stuff right here!

Aloha,
John

I offered the correct solution to a clear problem and you fought me on it.

Now seed808 is skirting the issue pointing out that he can indeed read a book, but cannot offer a solution.

If you are here to help then do so, sideswiping me is no way to prove that you have anything to contribute.

I have read the book, I own it. The knowledge I gained from it has helped me to understand the root problem in the case. Feel free to argue about that, but it would appear that even Titus213 sees the same solution to this as I do.

Get over having your ego bruised, correct info cannot be sidestepped in order to make you feel better about yourself.

[Field of 33]

Field of 33, have you tried installing the Canon software for processing your RAW files?
Yes. I had a typo in my OP. I do, in fact, you DPP to process my RAW files, not PSP X. I'm quite certain that PSP X will NOT support RAW files from the 40D.

I done a little work on it with PE6 see how you like it.
It looks very nice. It is much sharper than I was able to get in DPP. I personally think the sharpening feature in DPP is awful and useless. Sharpening tends to be the last thing I do. I convert to JPEG and then use Picasa to sharpen. That program does a nice job sharpening. Can you give me a quick and dirty of what you did in PE6? That would really help me quite a bit, I think.

Be careful. The reflection looks somewhat specular and could be blown which would through off your WB if you used it.

Can you explain what you mean? I was trying to find the "whitest" spot on the image and use that as my "true" white but I get the sense that isn't correct, is it?

[[AP]Red]

Hahaha, An E-fight is not going to bruise my ego and neither will a self proclaimed professional. I only argue the fact that your help came off misleading and could potentially cause more harm than good. please, dont give yourself too much credit that you could actually debunk my flow.

If any person, pro, amateur or noob prefers to post process his WB, then so be it. Faulting him for not doing it "in-camera" does not correct the issue of properly exposing and processing the image. The custom WB card is only as good as the person operating it. If you set it at the wrong time under the wrong conditions, you still end up with WB issues. Hence the need to shoot RAW. Get it close, Shoot then fix any mishaps later. Some people are under the impression that If they "get it perfect" they dont have to PP. This is not true for everyone and especially not true for me. PP is part of my work flow and i have become pretty efficient at too.

Tell me something since your a pro... Say you're covering an event, high paced party, mixed light indoors (flourecents, tungsten, stage lights and your strobe) and also mixed light outdoors. are you going to stop every once in a while, pull out your WB card and take a check shot to adjust your "custom" setting? All the while missing potential action and opportunities that your client expects you to capture. Throughout the night as you move around the club/party/event, how many times will you set a new custom WB? How many times will that custom WB actually be the CORRECT one? how many times will you have to tweak it in PP to get it right?

For me, it seems like too much of a hassle to worry about when there are higher priorities out there. I have the option of correcting WB after the fact and this is what i choose to do.

Your theory is correct, dont get me wrong, but real life situations call for adaptive measures and the need to take every possible advantage you can to get the images on your card. To call this way of processing wrong and "un-professional" would seem hypocritical.

Aloha,
John

[seed808]

^^^ OWNDED!!!! Nice post... esp the party scenario... LoL @ carryin a white card and asking everyone to stop and hold it while i correct...

Rabidcow,
Your remarks are obviously defensive, poking fun at my intelligence, and my ability to read a book. Congrats for ruining what POTN has established over the years... You can leave these immature remarks on another forum. We tend to be more respectful here. I was merely pointing you in a direction that would benefit you. If you take offense to that, then this board is not for you.

I was simply stating that your WB techniques are good, but does not help the original poster with the "issue". EK and AP has proven it.... I need not to retype what they have already told you...

Grow up...

[Pekka]

If it is hard to find good WB in RAW editor, often simple "color balance" editor in PS gets you there faster and easier.

[[AP]Red]

Field of 33, I will apologize for the discussion between myself and Rabidcow. I did not intend to jack your thread and deny you the knowledge you deserve. Please feel free to PM me if there are some other issues that i could possibly lend a hand.

E-K's post about using the specular hi-lite for WB is correct. I believe the explenation would be that a specular hi-lite is blown out. this will not help you correct any bias in the light. A blown hi-lite will always be "white" even if the WB is off. You need to look for something in the frame that you know to be a neutral color. something with even RGB values. Use this to select with the WB picker. In your frame it would seem difficult to find a neutral grey. In the background the white-ish patch may help but i doubt it. being able to know what your light source was (window?) will help you get close to the proper WB. All in all, sometimes the "correct" WB will come off kind of cold looking. i tend to warm up the images (a little more yellow) before i convert to JPEG.

Aloha,
John

[rabidcow]

Red;5697661']Hahaha, I only argue the fact that your help came off misleading and could potentially cause more harm than good. please, dont give yourself too much credit that you could actually debunk my flow.

You never argued that fact until now. Nothing misleading about my statements AP, and if they are, please tell me what is misleading. I will endure every effort to clarify.

Red;5697661'] If any person, pro, amateur or noob prefers to post process his WB, then so be it. Faulting him for not doing it "in-camera" does not correct the issue of properly exposing and processing the image. The custom WB card is only as good as the person operating it. If you set it at the wrong time under the wrong conditions, you still end up with WB issues. Hence the need to shoot RAW. Get it close, Shoot then fix any mishaps later. Some people are under the impression that If they "get it perfect" they dont have to PP. This is not true for everyone and especially not true for me. PP is part of my work flow and i have become pretty efficient at too.

Good points, but you are talking to a JPEG shooter, and as stated earlier, shoot RAW the same as JPEG. I will not fault anyone for their way of doing things, but I will encourage others to learn from my mistakes, as I have done here.



Red;5697661'] Tell me something since your a pro... Say you're covering an event, high paced party, mixed light indoors (flourecents, tungsten, stage lights and your strobe)

Sounds like a tough shoot, except for the strobe part...If I am using my speedlight, Norman, or other strobe/flash then WB is simply set to flash unless I know that the temperature of my artificial light is beyond that of my camera's Flash WB. I do this at every dance and prom that I shoot.

Red;5697661']how many times will you set a new custom WB?

How many times will that custom WB actually be the CORRECT one?

how many times will you have to tweak it in PP to get it right?

In a recent event I ran custom WB 12 times.

In each case, because I ran custom WB they were all correct.

Only had to tweak a handful in PP because I got careless and did not set my custom WB before changing rooms.

Red;5697661'] For me, it seems like too much of a hassle to worry about when there are higher priorities out there. I have the option of correcting WB after the fact and this is what i choose to do.

Priorities are an issue, no doubt about that. By learning how to set your camera up for the shot you will find that it is less of a hassle than you think. It has become second nature to many other photographers.

Red;5697661'] Your theory is correct, dont get me wrong, but real life situations call for adaptive measures and the need to take every possible advantage you can to get the images on your card. To call this way of processing wrong and "un-professional" would seem hypocritical.

Aloha,
John

I never said wrong or un-professional. I said that getting it right the first time prevents headaches and time consuming PP after the fact.

If my theory is is correct, then it is not a theory, it is fact that I put into practice daily.

[shadowcat]

Yes. I had a typo in my OP. I do, in fact, you DPP to process my RAW files, not PSP X. I'm quite certain that PSP X will NOT support RAW files from the 40D.


It looks very nice. It is much sharper than I was able to get in DPP. I personally think the sharpening feature in DPP is awful and useless. Sharpening tends to be the last thing I do. I convert to JPEG and then use Picasa to sharpen. That program does a nice job sharpening. Can you give me a quick and dirty of what you did in PE6? That would really help me quite a bit, I think.


Can you explain what you mean? I was trying to find the "whitest" spot on the image and use that as my "true" white but I get the sense that isn't correct, is it?

The only thing I did in PE6 was auto fix and auto sharpen thats all i did.

[E-K]

...Understand that shooting RAW is the same as shooting jpg.

Shooting RAW is not always the same as shooting JPEG. Since the OP mentioned trying to get their histogram all the way to the right, the suggestion is that they were trying to ETTR. In these circumstances you may be over exposing per the "correct" exposure and you may be using a UniWB WB setting (ummm...green ;)).

e-k

[Shooting]

All of this is why I quit shooting raw..I use the raw editor in CS3 to work on my jpegs and it is so much easier. I let my camera do what I did in photoshop..Camera does it more consistently and faster than I would and more accurately so that is why I shoot jpeg. The camera does my processing for me. I posted a pic I shot in raw just playing around but when it comes to serious work, it is jpeg all the way.

[E-K]

Can you explain what you mean? I was trying to find the "whitest" spot on the image and use that as my "true" white but I get the sense that isn't correct, is it?

You just have to ensure that none of the channels are blown at the location you picked for WB. Something that is specular in nature has a good chance of one or more channels being blown. As a result, the proper balance cannot be set.

Think of the extreme case were everything was blown in the spot you picked. DPP would look at that and say the image is already white balanced even if it wasn't.

You should get better results by using a darker white (i.e. gray ;)). As suggested already, a reference shot with a CWB can be used as a starting point and adjusted to taste. Is it necessary, no, but it is certainly more convenient if you have the time.

e-k

[expatdude]

I am brand new at shooting RAW and I am really not satisfied with the results of my pictures.That big dark blob in the upper left 1/3 is a toy box. In the original, it has a nice cherry finish to it. In the processed photo, it's pretty indistinguishable.

It seems to me the reason the toy box is pretty indistinguishable is the shallow depth of field in the photo. You clearly used a large aperture (f/2.8?, f/4?).

If you had used f/8, for example, the toy box would have been much clearer/more distinguishable. Of course, your exposure time would have been longer and most likely that would have resulted in your kid moving causing a lovely sharp toy box and a blurry kid. Not ideal.

[Field of 33]

It seems to me the reason the toy box is pretty indistinguishable is the shallow depth of field in the photo. You clearly used a large aperture (f/2.8?, f/4?).

If you had used f/8, for example, the toy box would have been much clearer/more distinguishable. Of course, your exposure time would have been longer and most likely that would have resulted in your kid moving causing a lovely sharp toy box and a blurry kid. Not ideal.
I wasn't referring to the sharpness of the toy-box, I was referring to the color of it. In the original photo, it has a nice cherry color to it. In the touched up image, it just looks like very dark brown. I do agree with the other that have stated that the focal point of the image is much more important for exposure than the background. In this case, my son was exposed correctly and that is most important.

[Titus213]

Shooting RAW is not always the same as shooting JPEG. Since the OP mentioned trying to get their histogram all the way to the right, the suggestion is that they were trying to ETTR. In these circumstances you may be over exposing per the "correct" exposure and you may be using a UniWB WB setting (ummm...green ;)).

e-k

I was referring to getting it right in the camera. In that case they are the same. Unless you are a post processing masochist. I shoot a custom WB using a Lastolite target and let the camera deal with it. It works for me.

In neither case is leaving the correction to post processing the best solution.

[E-K]

I was referring to getting it right in the camera. In that case they are the same. Unless you are a post processing masochist. I shoot a custom WB using a Lastolite target and let the camera deal with it. It works for me.

In neither case is leaving the correction to post processing the best solution.

If you ETTR, post processing is not only the best solution, it is the only solution ;).

I agree though, if you are not doing anything special then getting it as close as possible in camera for either JPEG or RAW is generally a good thing.

e-k

[Shooting]

His problem with histograms is why I don't mess with them. I have heard many photographers get so confused that the histogram looks right or good or they waste precious time working on it that they miss photo ops or people get tired of waiting, etc..I don't mess with histograms. I have seen that just because it is good on the chart doesn't mean it looks good to the client or you the photographer. I shoot for quality to me and my client, not for some chart..I do a custom WB with a pure white coffee filter over the lens..works for me every time.

[Titus213]

Shooting RAW will always require post processing. I just don't want to have to correct the color of the images at that point.

[Shooting]

I use CS3 and all I have to do is choose AUTO and it is corrected...it is no different really than with raw...you can click on a setting but if the saturation and if you have mixed lighting, you have to do the same thing to the raw image as you do the jpeg..I'd rather mess with something that is already processed and just need a little tweaking than something that the entire thing needs processed.