Does WB matter if you shoot raw
joshhuntnm
Registered Users Posts: 1,924 Major grins
Excuse my ignorance. I am just experimenting with shooting raw. does it matter waht the camera's white balance is set on if you shoot raw, or do you do well to just leave it at automatic and adjust it on the computer?
0
Comments
Generally speaking, the rule of thumb, "It's best to get it right in the camera" applies to WB just as it applies to things like exposure and composition. If you can set a Custom White Balance in camera and if that CWB is spot on (or very close), this will reduce your workflow by one step in post.
But, where the light source is constantly changing and I don't have the time to be constantly resetting the WB, I just leave the camera on AWB and let the chips fall where they may. Sometimes the AWB actually gets the WB really close (other times it's quite a bit off). For these shoots, I usually end up re-working the WB in post anyway and it's worked so far
But, there are exceptions to leaving the WB in AWB. For example, if you are shooting under conditions where the light source is changing and you want to see that change; like when you are building a pano shot. For a pano, you want every camera setting set to manual. So, no AWB there. Set to a CWB or to one of the factory options. Then, if necessary, correct in post.
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
I'm no expert in the technicalities, but here's my understanding: Shooting RAW allows you to adjust white balance after the photo has been taken. It doesn't matter what your in-camera settings were at the time.
When you capture a RAW file, your camera simply attaches a special header onto the RAW image file. The header contains all of your camera's settings (including things like white balance, exposure, saturation, sharpness, etc.) All of the image data is still stored in its raw form, regardless of those settings. The header doesn't change the image data. It merely tells your computer (or your camera, or any other RAW-compatible display device) how to display the image data based on the in-camera settings you used at the time.
When your camera saves other file formats, on the other hand, it uses your in-camera settings to actually change the image data before it is saved. Once it makes the changes, it takes all the unused left-over data and tosses it out. You can't recover that data once the image is captured... all you can do is try and adjust whatever data was saved.
For example, shooting in daylight with your white balance set for tungsten light (2500-3500 K) will give your images a decidedly blue cast. If you save your image as a JPG with this setting, then your camera may be tossing out a heck of a lot of yellow and red data. You can't later adjust your white balance in the computer and expect to recover the exact same yellow and red data to correct the color cast - the data is gone. It can't be recovered. (...although there are some tricks to approximate correcting the color cast.)
That's the big difference with RAW: all the image data is always there - nothing is tossed out. That's the reason why, with RAW files, you can continue to make adjustments to white balance, saturation, and other settings after you've already taken the picture - all the data is still there. The in-camera settings (including white balance) don't change them.
When you import the RAW file into a RAW-compatible image software (such as Lightroom, Adobe Camera Raw, and others) the software reads both the header and the raw image data. The software typically uses the header as a starting point - it uses it to show you "on-screen" what your image looks like given your camera settings at the time. Again, the software won't actually change the image data. You can adjust the settings at will (including white balance, saturation, etc.)
The image data won't be changed until you choose to convert/save/export the RAW file into another format (such as JPG, TIFF, or whatever). The software will use your adjusted settings to change the image data, toss out all the unused left-over data, and convert the file into your chosen format. (...but, even then, you still have the original RAW file to fall back on if you need to).
Click here for more information about RAW files, or here for some good information about white balance.
That was probably way more information than you wanted, but I hope it helps.
Phil Collum Photography
San Diego, CA, USA
Equipment list in my profile
It's been my exprience over the past few months that shooting RAW helps in every aspect of RAW editing. Contrast, Saturation, Exposure, etc all become apparent and detrimental very quickly in JPG, not just WB.
As I've gotten better at evaluating my settings, and the fact that I shoot hundreds of photos for the paper, I've gotten comfortable with shooting in JPG, but I still shoot raw in low light assignments because I know they may require extreme editing at times.
But when I shoot JPG, I have to be spot on with WB and exposure, because those are the hardest to correct with JPG. So I always recommend shooting RAW. I aso teachmy photographers the less editing I have to do in the photo, the better. I say it's a good habit to do the WB in photo than in PS
E
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
If I use the same settings except tungsten wb or tungsten film, the white paper will look blue but it's still properly exposed.
I know that I prefer to try and get it right in camera and if I have to, I can correct with the RAW file. These days I only shoot jpg's for sports.
I can't post anymore until I hit the casino. Lucky #7's.
dak.smugmug.com
Whatever setting you use. Don't use auto.
i.e. I go out and shoot all day using auto WB.
I come back to the house and u/l the images to my local drive. Since the camera did what it thought was best for me on EVERY single shot. Now I have the huge ordeal of going through each individual image to ensure WB is accurate enough for my taste or style.
Same scenario, using a preset WB setting so WB stays the same instead of auto.
After the u/l I can tweak one image to taste and make global adjustments to all the images that were in the same conditions.
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
Nothing is perfect, but this is way easier IMO.
If you're adjusting WB on all of the images anyway, what does it matter if they were shot with auto WB or some other WB setting? You're going to find the optimal WB setting and apply it to all of the images taken in the same conditions - whatever WB settings those images had will just be overwritten. No?
I like auto WB, unless I'm setting custom WB in camera. When setting WB in post, I like to see what the camera sees, and what Lightroom or ACR sees (using the auto mode there), just to compare to what I see and what the eye dropper sees. i.e. it's another tool I use to choose a proper WB. And, like you, I'll then apply that to all of the images taken under the same conditions.
YMMV
Call me lazy, but I simply shoot RAW all the time and don't bother with WB anymore until it's time to postprocess.
I used to use a graycard before in the studio environment but even that became too much of a hassle. I don't really care that 18% greycard image reads 127-127-127 if my model' skin is naturally reddish/yellowish and I want to adjust it for whatever purposes I have in mind.
Yes, as Scott mentioned, it adds one tiny step to my RawFlow. So what?
Yet again, in my line of shooting light changes constantly, setting WB all the time simply isn't worth it.
And yes, occasionally RAW can be a real life saver...
However, I agree with Mike about tending to use auto WB.
The way I see it, I can always adjust the WB in LR to daylight/cloudy/tungsten or use the eyedropper or set it manually but I can never see what the camera believed was the 'correct' WB unless I set the camera to use auto. I therefore tend to use auto except in situations where it usually fails such as under tungsten lighting.
On a tangent, when I was using C1pro, I shot a series of JPGs with the Canon 350D and then saved each WB temp and tint as a preset. That way I could adjust to the Canon daylight or C1pro daylight and see the difference. Anyone know if that can be done with LR?
E
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
It's just easier IMO to adjust from the same point every time vs. have to trust my eyes to know what looks good. I have 20/20 & color corrected monitors. I STILL don't trust my eyes
And that's totally fine by me, too. Just basically set it to something that covers the majority of your uses cases (Auto in my case
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
After that getting WB on location or in post really doesn't matter (albeit getting it on location does save you one click in ACR), unless... we're talking of the location color combined with the location lighting, which naturally can affect the color perception and create a permanent color shift, rendering the gray card useless. In this case the expodisk or phoxle screen should do the correct job with the custom white balance by recording the pecularities of the location lighting.
But I'm sure you know all that
This explains your interest in the Expo disk
I confess that I shoot in AWB, usually, out of doors, and correct in RAW. Does anyone like Canon's SUN white balance setting?
I will be using a color balance tool - ether incident or reflecting - much more in the future.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
And yes, I nearly always shoot teathered to an uncalibrated laptop, using Nikon Capture Control Pro and Lightroom. I don't know how I'd do it without anymore.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.