WB in LR3 raw vs jpeg

[Ricky21]

I know that if shooting raw the white balance is set during post processing. (I use LR3). I have uploaded jpegs and when I do I usually choose to set auto wb instead of as shot and it looks way better.

So, what is the difference between this and setting wb for raw? Is it the fact that you can change it in post processing to mirror the different options on the camera?

 

[jonathon94]

I'm slightly curious about this as well

 

[KmH]

I know that if shooting raw the white balance is set during post processing. (I use LR3). I have uploaded jpegs and when I do I usually choose to set auto wb instead of as shot and it looks way better.

So, what is the difference between this and setting wb for raw? Is it the fact that you can change it in post processing to mirror the different options on the camera?

Raw files are mostly unedited. Post process you can set the white balance of the Raw file very accurately. Particularly if you had a white balance target in one of the photos made in the same light. That's one use of a gray card.
Whatever white balance (or color space, saturation, contrast, sharpening, camera settings) the camera is set to isn't directly applied to a Raw file.

A JPEG has had the conrast, sharpening and saturation all globally edited. Raw files can be locally edited. JPEG files can have local edits applied on top of the edits the camera does, but the Raw files have a 16-bit color depth (16,384 gradations of tone per color channel) while JPEGs are limited to an 8-bit color depth (256 gradations of tone per color channel)


Not all cameas do auto white balance well, and the white balance can only fully correct for 1 light source temperature.

 

[KmH]

I'm slightly curious about this as well

I thought you said it only takes you 10-30 minutes to know how to use a technology.

 

[Big Mike]

When a photographer shoots JPEG, the white balance, tonal curve, sharpening, compression, and other choices are essentially burned into the file. The sharpening and compression are irreversible (you can blur the JPEG image to reduce the sharpening, but that is not the same as undoing the sharpening and it will degrade the image). Color and tonal problems created by improper white balance or tonal curve can be adjusted somewhat in a JPEG file, but it will cause some degradation of the image. The problem arises because the camera sets these parameters into the image at the time the photo is taken. Making changes to these parameters at a later time can be difficult (e.g., loss of detail in the shadows due to the use of a contrasty tonal curve) or impossible (e.g., undo file compression).

Why Raw -- Part I

I'd recommend reading that whole article (three parts). It's a bit technical at times, but it does a good job of explaining the differences of RAW vs JPEG.

 

[MReid]

In Lightroom it is easy to adjust white balance for jpegs and also raws.

 

[Big Mike]

In Lightroom it is easy to adjust white balance for jpegs and also raws.

:scratch:

 

[MReid]

In Lightroom it is easy to adjust white balance for jpegs and also raws.

:scratch:

Why the head scratch, I do it all the time no problems.

 

[fokker]

That's true I do too, though I think the WB edit for jpegs is more of a psuedo-adjustment, i.e. fudging it to make it look right rather than the raw editor which is able to set it accurately based on having complete pixel data. Or at least that's my understanding.

 

[Big Mike]

In Lightroom it is easy to adjust white balance for jpegs and also raws.

:scratch:

Why the head scratch, I do it all the time no problems.

The controls are the same, but the affect on the quality of the image is different. Granted, it might not always be something you can easily discern...but it's a quality degradation to make that adjustment to a JPEG file, much more so than with a raw file.

 

[MReid]

Not going to argue minute pixel to pixel info. that can't be seen.

I have a jpeg and I have a raw.
I use the eyedropper...click on something white or something with three values in the 60's....if necessary adjust the slider to taste.
Same effect on them both.

Just relaying my own personal experience with both formats.

 

[Ricky21]

The controls are the same, but the affect on the quality of the image is different. Granted, it might not always be something you can easily discern...but it's a quality degradation to make that adjustment to a JPEG file, much more so than with a raw file.

This is the exact answer I think I was looking for. Thanks mike

 

[KmH]

And as usual it goes back to the bit-depth difference between a JPEG and a Raw file.

An 8-bit JPEG only has 256 gradations of tone per channel.

A 12-bit Raw has 4096 gradations of tone per channel.

A 14-bit Raw file has 16,384 gradations of tone per channel.

I vote for 14-bit.

 

[Big Mike]

Not going to argue minute pixel to pixel info. that can't be seen.

I have a jpeg and I have a raw.
I use the eyedropper...click on something white or something with three values in the 60's....if necessary adjust the slider to taste.
Same effect on them both.

Just relaying my own personal experience with both formats.

Yes, many of us do get caught up in the 'best practice' way of doing things...and often, there is little difference to be seen between the 'best way' and the 'quick and easy' ways.

But by the same token, why use good quality lenses, when most wouldn't be able to tell the difference in the photos? Why use high end DSLR cameras when most couldn't tell the difference between those and a cheap DSLR...or even a decent point & shoot?

 

[MReid]

....and in the end none of that even matters unless the user knows how use them to take and then how to optimally process a quality photo.

....but it gives us lots of stuff to talk about on here .