You guys are gonna slaughter me for asking this...

[e.rose]

The basic question on this topic:

Does adjusting the white balance (or using auto) have ANY impact on the raw file???


​

Wow! You speak my language too?! Bitter and Kundalini aren't the ONLY ones that understand my idiobabble?

 

[e.rose]

The basic question on this topic:

Does adjusting the white balance (or using auto) have ANY impact on the raw file???


​

Yes, it impacts how the RAW File is displayed and it directly effects what white balance is recorded as part of the RAW data. Both parts of the RAW file since a JPEG preview and metadata are encoded in the RAW data.

So I have 6 people basically telling me it doesn't... and 1 telling me it does.

And now I'm confused again.

Or did I just mis-understand you 6?

 

[Kerbouchard]

The basic question on this topic:

Does adjusting the white balance (or using auto) have ANY impact on the raw file???


​

Yes, it impacts how the RAW File is displayed and it directly effects what white balance is recorded as part of the RAW data. Both parts of the RAW file since a JPEG preview and metadata are encoded in the RAW data.

So I have 6 people basically telling me it doesn't... and 1 telling me it does.

And now I'm confused again.

Or did I just mis-understand you 6?

No, the other 6 people are wrong or oversimplifying things(or I am overcomplicating things...probably the latter). White balance is recorded as part of the RAW data. Whether you choose to use a custom white balance, auto white balance, or preset white balance is besides the point. It will still be part of the RAW file as interpreted by any software. It also effects the built in JPEG that is a part of every RAW file. This effects the RAW file's size, the histogram, and more than a few 0's and 1's.

Now, whether any of that is important to you is the real question. Based on your previous comments, I would have to side with the other 6 and say that it probably doesn't matter one way or another how you want to set your white balance when shooting RAW, but to say that it is not a factor at all is not an accurate statement.

 

[SunnyHours]

the way I see it is yes it affects the RAW file in how the Jpeg preview is displayed but apart from that it doesn't...please tell me I'm right cuz it's the only logic answer lol

 

[e.rose]

According to this, it apparently doesn't...

Which camera settings affect the data in your raw files? | Shoot Raw

 

[Kerbouchard]

According to this, it apparently doesn't...

Which camera settings affect the data in your raw files? | Shoot Raw

No, that article specifically says that white balance effects several things, including the histogram, the way a file is rendered, the JPEG preview, the metadata etc...all of which I specifically mentioned. The article also mentions that the story isn't over, yet, and he would continue it later probably to talk about unibal, the option of using auto white balance and why, etc. Nothing in the article is wrong and it pretty much says what I have...he lists the differences and the effects white balance has on RAW files. If you don't find them to be of importance, then you shouldn't worry about it.

In any case, in your original post, you commented,

I mean, I understand changing it in camera so you don't have to change it later... and so you can also see an immediate result of the effect it has... but if I used the "Daylight" WB in my camera... it can still be changed around in post as if I had shot it on Auto white balance the whole time, right?

The answer is no. Auto white balance is info that you can never recover since it is not recorded if you have another white balance preset, so shooting in 'daylight' and changing it in post will never equal 'as if I had shot it on Auto white balance the whole time'. Shooting with a preset white balance or a custom white balance ensures that you will never know what the camera would have chosen for auto white balance, so it would be impossible to recreate.

 

[Liamsford]

If you're shooting in raw, you really don't have to mess with WB until the editing process if it means much to you. I usually just keep it on auto anyways, unless I want to warm up the scene, then I use Shade.

 

[e.rose]

According to this, it apparently doesn't...

Which camera settings affect the data in your raw files? | Shoot Raw

No, that article specifically says that white balance effects several things, including the histogram, the way a file is rendered, the JPEG preview, the metadata etc...all of which I specifically mentioned. The article also mentions that the story isn't over, yet, and he would continue it later probably to talk about unibal, the option of using auto white balance and why, etc. Nothing in the article is wrong and it pretty much says what I have...he lists the differences and the effects white balance has on RAW files. If you don't find them to be of importance, then you shouldn't worry about it.

In any case, in your original post, you commented,

I mean, I understand changing it in camera so you don't have to change it later... and so you can also see an immediate result of the effect it has... but if I used the "Daylight" WB in my camera... it can still be changed around in post as if I had shot it on Auto white balance the whole time, right?

The answer is no. Auto white balance is info that you can never recover since it is not recorded if you have another white balance preset, so shooting in 'daylight' and changing it in post will never equal 'as if I had shot it on Auto white balance the whole time'. Shooting with a preset white balance or a custom white balance ensures that you will never know what the camera would have chosen for auto white balance, so it would be impossible to recreate.

What I got out of what he's saying is... okay no it won't go back to Auto (that was a bad example of what I was trying to say anyway), but I can still change the WB around to what it would have been on any of the other presets had I used those instead, and anything in between using the temperature slider. All it records is what the temperature was at the time of exposure... which is all the presets are.

I don't really know how to explain what it is I'm trying to say, but I think I get it now so... yeah.

 

[Derrel]

Here's a simplified explanation of white it is important to use a white balance that is close to correct for the situation, and not wildly inappropriate or wildy inaccurate. Having the correct white balance set at the time of shooting gives the camera's demosaicing routines the right information to make the appropriate decisions to properly construct the color scheme that accurately represents the colors of the objects being photographed. Using red, green, and blue pixels, the camera must "estimate" the appropriate colors of objects and literally "create" the colors of every single object that the sensor can resolve. Keep in mind that the raw converter must create TWO OF THE COLORS at each photosite! If the white balance is wildly off, then the data being used is basically "bad data". Because a JPEG created by the camera is what the camera's histogram is created from, when the white balance at the time of shooting is wildly incorrect or inappropriate, there's a pretty good chance that the histogram will "lie to you", and you run the risk of blowing a channel as a result, or of not as fully exposing as possible. The camera should be set appropriately for the actual shooting environment--including the tone curve, degree of saturation, and the sharpening needed.

Several years ago, I had a Fuji S2 Pro camera. With it, I learned how incredibly beautiful digital photos could be---as long as a proper white balance was actually taken and entered into the camera. There is the widely accepted idea that the white balance can simply be forgotten about, and allowed to run in AUTO mode, and then later set "correctly" in post-processing. Most experienced or more technically-aware shooters will not agree with that idea, being well aware that the camera has to create color based on what it "thinks" the color temperature of the light was at the time of the exposure. When you get into artificial lighting that has weird and wild spectral deficiencies, shooting to a proper, real "valid" white balance is the accepted professional technique.

 

[analog.universe]

It records it, but you're not committed or anything, you get the same amount of data in each channel no matter what white balance you select. The in camera white balance is just "mixing instructions" to decode the raw later....

 

[Derrel]

It records it, but you're not committed or anything, you get the same amount of data in each channel no matter what white balance you select. The in camera white balance is just "mixing instructions" to decode the raw later....

There's no need for a recipe when making Duck and 40 Cloves of Garlic either. Just slop the 22 different ingredients into one big pan and bake it, or boil it, or broil it, or fry it. It always come out identically well. Same goes for building a house. No need for accurate measuring of anything. I mean, F&Ck it all, right? What's the difference between a 20 foot nine-inch rafter and a 21 footer, right? Accurate methods are for pussies. Technical, fastidious working is for geeks. I mean, what the F&Ck, right?

 

[Kerbouchard]

Here's a simplified explanation of white it is important to use a white balance that is close to correct for the situation, and not wildly inappropriate or wildy inaccurate. Having the correct white balance set at the time of shooting gives the camera's demosaicing routines the right information to make the appropriate decisions to properly construct the color scheme that accurately represents the colors of the objects being photographed. Using red, green, and blue pixels, the camera must "estimate" the appropriate colors of objects and literally "create" the colors of every single object that the sensor can resolve. Keep in mind that the raw converter must create TWO OF THE COLORS at each photosite! If the white balance is wildly off, then the data being used is basically "bad data". Because a JPEG created by the camera is what the camera's histogram is created from, when the white balance at the time of shooting is wildly incorrect or inappropriate, there's a pretty good chance that the histogram will "lie to you", and you run the risk of blowing a channel as a result, or of not as fully exposing as possible. The camera should be set appropriately for the actual shooting environment--including the tone curve, degree of saturation, and the sharpening needed.

Several years ago, I had a Fuji S2 Pro camera. With it, I learned how incredibly beautiful digital photos could be---as long as a proper white balance was actually taken and entered into the camera. There is the widely accepted idea that the white balance can simply be forgotten about, and allowed to run in AUTO mode, and then later set "correctly" in post-processing. Most experienced or more technically-aware shooters will not agree with that idea, being well aware that the camera has to create color based on what it "thinks" the color temperature of the light was at the time of the exposure. When you get into artificial lighting that has weird and wild spectral deficiencies, shooting to a proper, real "valid" white balance is the accepted professional technique.

I'm not sure I agree with this. For one, the camera does not decide the colors when shooting in RAW. The RAW processor does, based on it's assigned inputs, so I'm not sure how, other than the histogram, it would lead to 'bad' data...and even if the data was 'bad', appropriate processing in a RAW converter would restore it to a normal picture file. I'll have to test this myself sometime tomorrow...set up a tripod, take a custom white balance, take a shot of a calibration card, and then set my white balance as far off as possible, take the same shot, and see if the results are identical after processing. I think they would be.

The other part I am not sure I agree with is that auto white balance is not accepted by experienced or technically-aware shooters. I would consider myself a very technically-aware shooter with quite a bit of experience and I think auto white balance is preferable to a custom white balance in many situations...to name a few, when your shutter speed is anything other than a multiple of 1/60th of a second under artificial lighting, when you are moving around your environment, when your shooting angles to the light sources is constantly changing, when several different light sources are in the picture, when shooting on a partially cloudy day when the sun is sometimes obscured by clouds...well, you get the point.

Sometimes, an auto white balance is more accurate than a custom white balance. Heck, that one is easy to prove. Set your shutter speed to 1/80th of a second and shoot a custom white balance or pick the flourescent preset...now take 5 shots under flourescent lighting. Now put your camera in auto white balance and take 5 shots again under the same lighting conditions. Auto White Balance will deliver more consistent results under circumstances like that.

Now, on the other hand, if I am shooting from a tripod, have some time, and want to guarantee my colors are perfect, I will take a custom white balance, and then use my calibration target to make sure my exposure is spot on. Takes an extra 30 seconds or so, but it guarantees me the perfect shot.

In any case, I feel like I am arguing both sides of the coin. The setting for your white balance matters, even when shooting RAW. There are benefits and cons to using auto or a custom white balance, but I think there is almost never a case where using one of the camera presets is a good choice.

 

[kundalini]

Geeeze, this seems to have gotten complicated.

Emily, the surest way to acheive correct WB for YOUR scene under YOUR lighting conditions at the time is to shoot a grey card. If the lighting changes, shoot another grey card. If YOU"RE not completely happy with the result for YOUR vision, tweak it in post.

 

[Ronaldo]

Here's a simplified explanation of white it is important to use a white balance that is close to correct for the situation, and not wildly inappropriate or wildy inaccurate. Having the correct white balance set at the time of shooting gives the camera's demosaicing routines the right information to make the appropriate decisions to properly construct the color scheme that accurately represents the colors of the objects being photographed. Using red, green, and blue pixels, the camera must "estimate" the appropriate colors of objects and literally "create" the colors of every single object that the sensor can resolve. Keep in mind that the raw converter must create TWO OF THE COLORS at each photosite! If the white balance is wildly off, then the data being used is basically "bad data". Because a JPEG created by the camera is what the camera's histogram is created from, when the white balance at the time of shooting is wildly incorrect or inappropriate, there's a pretty good chance that the histogram will "lie to you", and you run the risk of blowing a channel as a result, or of not as fully exposing as possible. The camera should be set appropriately for the actual shooting environment--including the tone curve, degree of saturation, and the sharpening needed.

Several years ago, I had a Fuji S2 Pro camera. With it, I learned how incredibly beautiful digital photos could be---as long as a proper white balance was actually taken and entered into the camera. There is the widely accepted idea that the white balance can simply be forgotten about, and allowed to run in AUTO mode, and then later set "correctly" in post-processing. Most experienced or more technically-aware shooters will not agree with that idea, being well aware that the camera has to create color based on what it "thinks" the color temperature of the light was at the time of the exposure. When you get into artificial lighting that has weird and wild spectral deficiencies, shooting to a proper, real "valid" white balance is the accepted professional technique.

So you are saying that in raw digital shooting there is not an exposure triangle, but rather a quadrilateral? ISO, Aperature, Shutter Speed and White Balance??

 

[Kerbouchard]

So you are saying that in raw digital shooting there is not an exposure triangle, but rather a quadrilateral? ISO, Aperature, Shutter Speed and White Balance??

Just because people keep repeating it and publishing it doesn't make it right. There is an exposure triangle. It does consist of 3 parts. Those 3 parts are Light, Aperture, and shutter speed. Everything else is how the camera interprets that information.

As far as white balance, and what Derrel was referring to(I think) is, if you use the histogram to fine tune your exposures(which you should(or even if you use the LCD to fine tune your exposures)), then using a white balance that is very far off from correct would give you bad information and would cause you to expose a scene improperly because when you view the histogram(or lcd) it is based on the JPEG that is embedded in the raw file which is effected by the white balance that is set at the time of capture.

Setting a white balance that is way too warm for your actual scene could cause you to think you have blown the red channels before you were anywhere near that, thus resulting in you changing your exposure and underexposing the rest of your shoot...or setting your white balance too cool could cause you to think you are fine, but actually have you blowing the red channels and not being able to recover them.