White balance.

[Pete Gl]

I know there's tons of stuff on the forum about this, but, can someone answer me this question simply?

I (now) shoot totally in raw, am I wasting my time playing around with the in-camera white balance settings? I think I understand from what I'm reading on the forum, is that the in-camera settings only effect JPG's and have no effect whatsoever on RAW, and any adustments to white balance, in those RAW images, is achieved in PP.

Thanks in advance for your help

Pete

[Hermeto]

If you shoot RAW, use AWB and adjust white balance in post processing.
White balance and Picture Styles influence only the small JPG used for reviewing the shot on camera’s LCD monitor.
That could potentially cause blowing one of the channels, but at this time you don't need to worry about that.

[Pete Gl]

Thanks very much Hermeto, you've confirmed what I thought. However, that last sentence threw me slightly: -

That could potentially cause blowing one of the channels, but at this time you don't need to worry about that.

What could potentially cause blowing one of the channels?

Pete

[Hermeto]

Thanks very much Hermeto, you've confirmed what I thought. However, that last sentence threw me slightly: -

What could potentially cause blowing one of the channels?

Pete

WB and Picture Styles, although used only for reviewing, can give you the false histogram readout, which in turn, can make you blow one of the R, G, B channels.

[Pete Gl]

Ah right, I understand now, purely for reviewing on the LCD, not the actual image.

Thanks once again Hermeto

Pete

[Plant McCloud]

WB and Picture Styles, although used only for reviewing, can give you the false histogram readout, which in turn, can make you blow one of the R, G, B channels.

If you shoot RAW and do not have the camera set to also create the accompanying jpg, is viewing the histogram on the camera after the shot relatively accurate?

[Hermeto]

If you shoot RAW and do not have the camera set to also create the accompanying jpg, is viewing the histogram on the camera after the shot relatively accurate?

You cannot do that, small JPG is created automatically.
Some people use UniWB for the purpose of histogram accuracy.

[Pete Gl]

Some people use UniWB for the purpose of histogram accuracy.

Sorry Hermeto, what's UniWB?

Pete

[Hermeto]

Sorry Hermeto, what's UniWB?

Pete
UniWB is an image specially developed for the purpose of equalizing channels and used for Custom WB.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/search.php?searchid=1162432

As I said before, at this stage you don’t have to worry too much about that.

[Hermeto]

I know there's tons of stuff on the forum about this, but, can someone answer me this question simply?

I (now) shoot totally in raw, am I wasting my time playing around with the in-camera white balance settings? I think I understand from what I'm reading on the forum, is that the in-camera settings only effect JPG's and have no effect whatsoever on RAW, and any adustments to white balance, in those RAW images, is achieved in PP.

Thanks in advance for your help

Pete

Reading your original post again, I have to make myself clear!
Although I suggested using AWB and fixing WB in post processing, I strongly advise you to use Custom WB for tricky or mixed lighting, especially inside..
Get yourself a Gray Card, learn how to use it - and use it, if you go for the mission critical shot.
Or at least throw the Gray Card somewhere in the first frame and use it for reference in post processing.

[Pete Gl]

Thanks for the advice. I suppose, I too, could have made myself clearer as to why the question is important to me.

I enjoy a lot of urban night time photography, with lots of tungsten, flourescent, neon, etc. light present, making, as you suggested, tricky and mixed lighting, and do get a lot of the 'orange glow in the sky' effect, some times not always removable in PP. So I guess, yes, purchase myself a grey card, learn custom white balance, and experiment.

Thanks again.

Pete

[PPPhoto]

Even if you are shooting RAW, you will actually get better exposures, and better color, if you shoot with a correct/custom WB rather than trying to fix it in post. AWB does get close, at times. Experiment with using AWB and custom for the same scene, and then compare them on the computer, after adjust the WB on the auto images. I think that you will be a bit surprised. It may not be a big enough difference for most people, but some will be picky enough to be concerned about it.

[Hermeto]

Thanks for the advice. I suppose, I too, could have made myself clearer as to why the question is important to me.

I enjoy a lot of urban night time photography, with lots of tungsten, flourescent, neon, etc. light present, making, as you suggested, tricky and mixed lighting, and do get a lot of the 'orange glow in the sky' effect, some times not always removable in PP. So I guess, yes, purchase myself a grey card, learn custom white balance, and experiment.

Thanks again.

Pete

Hmm, interesting..

I don’t have much experience with urban and landscape photography, artificial outside lighting and such, so feel free to rectify me, but I would think that in such cases you wouldn’t like to strive strictly for natural, 'real' white balance.
Wouldn’t you like to play with colors and tones in artificial light?

[Plant McCloud]

Even if you are shooting RAW, you will actually get better exposures, and better color, if you shoot with a correct/custom WB rather than trying to fix it in post. AWB does get close, at times. Experiment with using AWB and custom for the same scene, and then compare them on the computer, after adjust the WB on the auto images. I think that you will be a bit surprised. It may not be a big enough difference for most people, but some will be picky enough to be concerned about it.

Just to be sure I understand. You are saying that when shooting RAW the camera setting should be on AWB (if a custom is not set), and if that is done the images may be a bit better.

I know that is redundant to what you say, but I am slightly confused by the fact that other postings I have read say that when shooting RAW the camera's WB setting are irrelevant because the WB is set in post.

[Jon]

The White Balance may e set in post, but if you use the histogram as an aid to getting optimum exposure, that's derived from the embedded JPEG, and will be influenced by the white balance you have used.

Note - most, if not all, RAW processing applications can read the RAW metadata including white balance, and will apply the "As Shot" white balance to the picture unless you change the setting.

[Plant McCloud]

Note - most, if not all, RAW processing applications can read the RAW metadata including white balance, and will apply the "As Shot" white balance to the picture unless you change the setting.

Wow! I did not know that. I thought the camera's WB was totally ignored. So if I understand this correctly, if you are shooting in a tungsten environment and the camera WB is set to daylight, when viewed in ACR using the As Shot setting, the WB will be off because the camera WB didn't match the ambient and the correct WB will only be set when you change the ACR setting to tungsten.

If that is correct, then I don't understand why similar WB settings don't match. By that I mean that when I shoot raw with the camera set to daylight and load into ACR, the As Shot temperature is 4950 and the tint is +4. But when I manually change the ACR setting to daylight, the temp becomes 5500 and the tint +10. Why didn't daylight in the camera match daylight in acr? Is this because canon's setting of daylight is different than adobe's?

[tzalman]

If that is correct, then I don't understand why similar WB settings don't match. By that I mean that when I shoot raw with the camera set to daylight and load into ACR, the As Shot temperature is 4950 and the tint is +4. But when I manually change the ACR setting to daylight, the temp becomes 5500 and the tint +10. Why didn't daylight in the camera match daylight in acr? Is this because canon's setting of daylight is different than adobe's?
It's because every software or firmware designer is free to decide what "Daylight" should look like. There is a convention that daylight is 5200 degrees, but it's not a hard and fast rule, so if the Adobe team decides that warmer is better they make it 5500. (Just like in the old days Fuji thought that people want to look tanned and healthy while Kodak went with a cooler rendition.) And besides, what exactly is "daylight"? Is it eight in the evening in Stockholm on June 21 or high noon in Sri Lanka on New year's Day? Any preset is an approximation and a compromise.

Who was it that said that precision is the bugbear of a small mind? Treat WB as a creative tool and trust your eye to determine what is right for that photo, rather than accepting the dictates of Canon and Abobe.

[Plant McCloud]

Who was it that said that precision is the bugbear of a small mind? Treat WB as a creative tool and trust your eye to determine what is right for that photo, rather than accepting the dictates of Canon and Abobe.

But then again, there's the old quote that an error the breadth of a hair can lead someone a thousand miles astray. ;)

As to trusting dictates, I don't. In fact, I just recently learned just how bad (and off the WB mark) ACR can be! When processing infrared images, and when the IR WB is properly set in the camera, ACR is unable to adjust to that WB and properly display the image to the point that ACR is almost useless for processing.

Thanks for your help.