big-guy wrote:
When shooting JPG the camera assigns, as best it can, a white balance. When shooting RAW there is no white balanced assigned and leaves that to PP. For you, shooting both, the camera will show you on the JPG what it deems as correct but won't/can't touch the RAW version.
This isn't entirely correct...
When shooting JPEG, a white balance is assigned and applied. And, if you're using Auto White Balance, it will be the camera's "best guess". But if using any of the "presets" such as "sunlight", "shade", "cloudy", "tungsten", etc., that is what will be applied to the JPEG. Note that the "presets" are just coarse estimates as to what's "correct" in any given situation. They're probably wrong far more often than they're right!
When instead saving RAW files, the same white balance is recorded, but not yet applied to the image. It is used for any reviews on the camera's LCD, for the histogram calculations, and by most RAW conversion/post-processing software for previews of the image. If you simply convert the RAW "as shot", the WB that was recorded is what will be used. The difference is that with RAW files you are free to change the WB without any loss, since it's not yet actually been applied to the image. Yes, any adjustments done with the sliders in Lightroom will change the WB when you export the file from LR. (But remember that LR is "non-destructive", so any changes you made to WB are reversible, if you wish. The RAW file actually hasn't been changed and you can re-adjust or revert to the original WB, then do another conversion at the different settings.)
tenny52 wrote:
...
Should LR be sufficient that the output jpg need no further process (levels,color, contrast, brightness, etc) in PS?
This is up to you. IMO... Nope. Personally I use LR to generate "proofs" of images... But I do not find it sufficient for fully finished images that will be used to make prints or other "higher" uses. I always start out working an image in LR, which has rather basic "global" adjustments and minimal, rather coarse retouching capabilities... Then I ALWAYS finish images further in Photoshop. It might be just a little work done in a few minutes, or up to an hour or more work to fully finish an image.
[/quote]If one hesitates of the exposure during shooting, underexposed is better than overexposed Or the same, (of course by the same amount) ?[/quote]
Nope.... underexposure IS NOT better than slight overexposure. Underexposure that needs to be be corrected later in post-processing will amplify noise in images. A little or A LOT (depending upon the image and how much it's exposure needs to be "pushed").
Slight overexposure is better. In fact, digital images are nowhere near as prone to highlights getting "blown out", than people think. It's actually short comings of their computer monitors or the LCD screen that make people think highlights are being blown out. Most tend to "clip" highlights quite a bit (so before you trash an image for blown out highlights seen on-screen, make a print from it with a quality photo printer.... When printed there is nearly always a lot more detail in both highlights and shadows, than can be seen on screen). Plus, in fact, there are times when things actually are pure white in images.... when highlights are not blown out, but are being correctly rendered.
The whole principle of Expose To The Right (ETTR) utilizes the concept that it's much better to slightly overexpose, than it is to underexposure. It's better to "pull" back exposure slightly in post-processing. There won't be an increase in noise in the shadows, doing that. And highlights are more recoverable than people realized.
However, "slightly" is still a key word. You don't want to overexpose too much.
So, what do you need to do? Well, if you find all or most of your images need some "push" up in exposure when working through them in Lightroom... you're a candidate to start using ETTR.
On a related note, unless your computer monitor is properly calibrated and regularly re-calibrated, you are just guessing and probably adjusting your images incorrectly. Calibration is absolutely essential for accurate post-processing. Without it, nearly all computer monitors are way too bright to correctly adjust image exposure... That will cause you to make your images too dark, which will show up in prints or when the images are displayed online. Similarly, color rendition needs to be calibrated.
Plus, computer monitors gradually change both brightness and color rendition over time, as the monitor ages. For that reason, re-calibration needs to be done periodically. (I do it every two months... some people do it more often, others less often.)
Finally, particularly if you do very much printing, a calibration device and software will essentially pay for itself in savings of wasted paper and ink!
rmalarz wrote:
...This is pushed a bit more than 2-1/2 stops...
--Bob
Good example Bob. However I'd call that a "pulled" exposure adjustment... not "pushed". It's just semantics... but seems to me that it makes most sense when "overexposure is
pulled back down to a correct exposure" versus "underexposure
pushed up to a correct exposure". Back before digital, we used to "push" and "pull" film when we developed it.