RAW is WAR

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Guest, Oct 5, 2005.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest


    I did state "as shot" white balance.
     
    Guest, Oct 8, 2005
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. Guest

    Guest Guest

    In short, no it doesn't.
     
    Guest, Oct 8, 2005
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

    You obviously have no idea of what I am asking and have not produced an
    answer, so keep you insults to yourself.
     
    Guest, Oct 8, 2005
    #63
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I earn a living from photography, do you? I think not.
     
    Guest, Oct 8, 2005
    #64
  5. Yes. The RAW file has no white balance adjustment applied.
    The JPEG does.

    The camera selected option for white balance is part of the
    meta data supplied with the RAW file, but it has not been applied
    to the image data. Conversion to any other format will
    implement that conversion by default as part of the conversion.
     
    Floyd Davidson, Oct 8, 2005
    #65
  6. What you've done is state that you believe they should be
    identical. That is an invalid premise that you are assuming if
    true. They should *not* be identical.
     
    Floyd Davidson, Oct 8, 2005
    #66
  7. After teaching numerous Lotus classes at the junior college level and
    Excel classes for private enterprise, I think I've got a pretty good
    grasp of graphs.
    Uh...yeah. A clue is a terrible thing to waste.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Oct 8, 2005
    #67
  8. Like I care...
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Oct 8, 2005
    #68
  9. In short, no it doesn't.[/QUOTE]


    I know, I don't know what some people want to insist that JPEG effects
    color that much.


    *
    Photographs by Christian Bonanno
    http://christianbonanno.com/
     
    Christian Bonanno, Oct 8, 2005
    #69
  10. Guest

    Neil Guest

    Mr. "I make a living from photography",

    How does that have bearing on whether or not you have a clue (which you
    obviously do not) as to how image processing works in a digital camera?
    I apparently have a better grasp of how this all works than you do. The
    fact that you make you're living in photography and I make mine in
    engineering has no affect on the fact that you are clueless. Thanks and
    have a nice day.

    Neil
     
    Neil, Oct 8, 2005
    #70
  11. Guest

    Neil Guest

    Seems I've been a bit of a dick. I just shot some RAW+JPEG images.
    Would you like me to post a pair to illustrate that there is and
    *SHOULD* be a differance? RAW images have no saturation, sharpness,
    etc. modifications applied to them at the point you import. When you
    shoot in JPEG format, the camera applies sharpening, saturation,
    contrast, etc. modifications according to either a) how it's set-up or
    b) how it's hard-wired to do it. None of these alterations are applied
    to RAW images unless you do it yourself in software. That's why they
    are different. Why does that not make sense?

    Neil
     
    Neil, Oct 8, 2005
    #71
  12. Guest

    Neil Guest

    I wasn't saying that having a file in JPEG format magically affects
    color. What I was saying that the camera may alter the
    color/saturation/sharpness/etc while processing the RAW data into a
    JPEG. This is the explanation of why his two images are different. The
    JPEG was post-processed in-camera, the RAW wasn't. How is this
    inaccurate?

    Neil
     
    Neil, Oct 8, 2005
    #72
  13. Guest

    Neil Guest

    Wrong. If I shoot RAW+JPEG, the JPEG will be Sharper, more Saturated,
    and more Contrasty. The RAW file will not. The camera post-processes
    the image while creating the JPEG. The camera does not post-process the
    RAW. *THAT* is why they look different straight out of the camera. I'm
    not arguing that color magement doesn't also play a role, only that
    straight out of import a RAW file and JPEG of the same shot are *NOT*
    going to look the same with most default camera settings. Please
    explain to me how this is incorrect. I can point you to 3 or 4 articles
    from Popular Photography and half a dozen websites that clearly state
    that this is how things work. I may not be a fancy "artist" like you
    guys, but I do understand how the equipment works.

    Neil
     
    Neil, Oct 8, 2005
    #73
  14. Guest

    Neil Guest

    Please take a look here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page18.asp
    Look at the image pairs and read the explanation. You seem to be the
    only one that thinks the two images should be identical.

    Neil
     
    Neil, Oct 8, 2005
    #74
  15. Guest

    Guest Guest


    Therefore, when the RAW file is converted in the Photoshop plug in to the
    'as shot' white balance and opened then saved as a jpeg, it should be the
    same, surely.
     
    Guest, Oct 9, 2005
    #75
  16. Guest

    Guest Guest


    What everrrrrr!
     
    Guest, Oct 9, 2005
    #76
  17. Guest

    Guest Guest


    When you say " at the point you import", what do you mean.
     
    Guest, Oct 9, 2005
    #77
  18. Guest

    Guest Guest


    Yes I KNOW that jpegs are different from RAW, but......when the RAW is
    converted to jpeg it *should* be identical if you apply the 'as shot'
    settings to the RAW file, open it in Photoshop and save it as a jpeg.

    BTW, please point.
     
    Guest, Oct 9, 2005
    #78
  19. Guest

    Guest Guest


    Yes that is quite interesting, thank you for that.
     
    Guest, Oct 9, 2005
    #79
  20. Guest

    Paul Furman Guest

    The only 'as shot' setting is white balance. Maybe someone has
    documented appropriate settings in the PS RAW converter to achieve
    similar results to specific camera's default saturation and contrast
    settings. I just played with the settings to find a setting that pleases
    my tastes not really worrying about what the camera defaults were and
    saved those as my default RAW conversion settings in PS.

    Maximum sharpening in PS RAW is still pretty mild and suitable for all
    but grainy high ISO pics. I like the saturation at normal but the
    shadows boosted which increases contrast and saturation dropping shadow
    detail but preserving highlights, etc. Something that typically works
    for most of my pictures. Whatever you like is what is correct to use.

    I suppose it's possible to configure it for the most accurate rendering
    of a color test chart under the sort of lighting you typically use but I
    suspect the default jpeg settings would be more contrasty than that.
    That is probably what the default PS RAW settings are based on but it's
    awfully hard for them to generalize.
     
    Paul Furman, Oct 9, 2005
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.