naturepics43 Loc: Hocking Co. Ohio - USA

Just read thru an active post http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-148181-1.html and seems responders are saying it doesn't matter what camera settings you use as the raw image can be fixed in PP. Seems like when I try to "fix" (WB or exposure) an image, all I do is add a lot of noise. What am I missing?

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

What camera do you have? What software are you using for post processing?

naturepics43 Loc: Hocking Co. Ohio - USA

Nikon D200 (10.4MP), D90 (12.3MP, and D7000 (16.2MP). I use PSE9 and the Nikon View NX2.

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

I don't know how you are interpreting things, but it does matter what your settings are. You still have to pay attention to your white balance when shooting in RAW also. Plain and simple.

Shooting in Raw does not cure high noise levels with a high ISO nor does it cure the blue tinge if you have your wb set to incandescent and you take a shot outdoors.

You still need to set your camera up properly for the pic you are about to take.

If you have a pic that is slightly yellow or blue overall, or if the skin tones or contrast and brights are off, Raw gves you more latitude in adjusting those kind of pics in post and usually will correct them just fine whereas if those same pics were shot in Jpeg, they would still end up being a little funky in post. I am keeping it really simple here.

In addition, if your camera is of good quality and the results are excellent even when shooting in Jpeg, you don't even need to shoot in RAW. Anything you need to do in post will be minimal even with a Jpeg.

Use your exposure triangle correctly and take some pics in RAW and in Jpeg. Then play with them in post. Your Jpegs may look just fine. Good. But with the RAW pics, you will notice that you will have a lot more control over the exposure with the tool that you have in your post processing programs. This comes in real handy when you are in funky lighting conditions or if you have some saturation problems.

Just keep playing and you will catch on very quickly.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

I shoot RAW + JPEG (with Nikon). I believe in getting it as close to right in the camera as possible.

I set my own white balance. I can adjust it in pp if I want.

As to exposure, if you under or over expose, as you correct it in pp you will add noise. Get the exposure right in camera and you'll minimize noise later.

Post processing can only correct a poorly executed photo (even in RAW) to a certain extent. Post processing and RAW should not be an excuse for poor technique.

I don't mean to sound harsh; that's not my intent.

naturepics43 Loc: Hocking Co. Ohio - USA

The following is a Quote from the other post:

Leave it on auto, but it doesn't really matter. You can just adjust in post.


bobbybob wrote:
Thanks rpavich. So just to be sure that I understand - settings such as white balance become redundant as I can adjust later? So what setting would you have that on or does it really not matter. Hope this isn't being pedantic, I just want to be sure that I fully understand.

There are other similar posts referring to exposure in the same way. Maybe I'm reading the posts in the wrong way but this was my take from the responses. I hope the OP doesn't interoperate responses the way I did. From my experiences ( somewhat limited) if the image isn't pretty darn close out of camera it's a lost cause trying to "fix" in PP.

Frapha Loc: Tulsa, Oklahoma

Settings DO matter. If settings didn't matter, camera mfgrs would not make cameras with ability to change settings -- you'd only need a camera permanently set on RAW with shutter & lens and a post-processing program. Post-processing can do a lot with a RAW image (more than you can with jpeg), but PP still has limitations, thus the need to do the best you can in the camera.

Musket Loc: ArtBallin'

RAW is all the sensor data as it was recorded. No fancy settings, no extra sharpening or saturation adjustments, just your ISO/Shutter speed/aperture setting and how the camera recorded the image based on those 3 pieces of data.

Settings matter but shooting raw gives you a lot more flexibility than not. I can recover a lot more lighting mistakes/issues from a RAW file than I can from a JPG. The only downside to RAW for me is the file size.

Getting it right in camera is a myth. Not any one of the greats got it right in camera. Almost all of them did a ton of darkroom post production. RAW files is as close to a digital negative as we can get. JPG is catching up in some respects to this. Fuji is the first brand I have used where I do not feel I have to have a RAW file. I dont trust Nikon jpgs the way I can trust Fuji jpgs.

Nikon Ron Loc: Klamath Falls, Oregon

This is "my way" of making images. My goal is to set up the camera in such a way that I get exactly the image that I want. This doesn't always happen, which leads to post processing. Processing programs can do minor adjustments but they can also do some very in depth processing. Modern programs can do wonderful things to images if that is what you want or need. Try to "do it right the first time" and use post processing to clean up the details. :-)

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Yes...technically that's true...but what he's saying is that auto will get you pretty close...and you can fine tune it if necessary in LR.

He's not saying leave it whacked and really wrong and then fix it in LR.

I leave my camera on auto WV and it's pretty good about making WB decisions....then in LR I tweak it if necessary.

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

I do shoot in Raw. Once a month I am in a small room with lots of people taking photos. This room is lit by fluorescent, overhead lighting. I have tried shooting with the camera in auto white balance. It is one royal pain in the ass in post. I have tried some of the other in camera settings and the results are poor at best. Fortunately, the wall are of an off-white colour. Great! I do a custom white balance by using the walls as my base point. No problems whatsoever.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Tom, this is really well said!
:thumbup: :thumbup:

Wall-E Loc: Phoenix, AZ

White balance is NOT relevant to a RAW image. It's an instruction to be ADDED TO the image at some point after capture. I leave my WB on cloudy. It gives me the most neutral PREVIEW



Yes it does cure the 'blue tinge', since that's actually an artifact of the recorded WB setting.



You're simplifying it too much and with incorrect info.



Personal opinion.

I've come to HATE jpeg, and shoot almost exclusively in RAW.
JPEG is a necessary evil, only to come into existence AFTER I do all my PP.



It isn't just the WB that you have WAY more control over.
Saturation, curves, sharpening, noise reduction, and on, and on, and on.

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

We do have a little disagreement here. We do agree on some stuff.

If your white balance is way off when you take a photograph, it will appear that way in post. Even if you are shooting in RAW, this can be a problem even for lightroom; been there, done it.

Yes, I am over simplifying things because the O.P. is asking about something they do not quite understand.

It also appears when people are asking questions about RAW, way to much emphasis is placed on this and many responders say that you should always shoot in RAW if your camera has the capability. This is not so. Just look at the latest cover of G.Q. It was shot in Jpeg.

There are a lot of opinions about this. A lot of pros only shoot in RAW, others in Jpeg. A lot of pros don't even use lightroom. Big deal. Whatever works for them. I am not a pro and I can use all of the help I can get.

I do use the in camera HDR feature that I have on occasion. The camera has to be in Jpeg for this feature to work. Sometimes I forget to switch back to RAW. I end up having a whole shoot mostly in Jpeg. Since I set my camera manually anyway, You know, wb, shutter speed, ISO, aperture and such, even when I am in post I don't pay attention because the photo is pretty well dead on in the first place. It has never been a problem for me; just one step that I have eliminated.

I do not use the live view or the preview buttons on my camera. Very, very rarely do I even set up a photo using the LCD screen. I prefer everything viewed through the optical viewfinder. A lot of people swear by these.

I also said that one does have a lot more control over everything in post when manipulating a RAW picture. I just kept it simple.

I am also very familiar with the Nikon D7000. I love it even though I am a Sony shooter. But I have taken many pics with this camera that I have screwed up with wb and even lightroom could not totally remedy. But I did get them close enough that most people would not even notice. If I had shot these same photos in Jpeg, I would have been totally screwed.

So yes, whatever your initial settings are whether they be in Jpeg or RAW, has everything to do with what happens in post.

The K.I.S.S. theory works very well in photography; especially when trying to explain things in layman's terms.

Wall-E Loc: Phoenix, AZ

You are correct, we disagree

What you're seeing is the camera's WB setting being applied to the PREVIEW that LR is rendering. Easily adjusted if it's a RAW image with a reasonable exposure. Tougher to get right in a jpeg if not correct in-camera.