Mi630

I tried looking this up using the search function and could not find anything. My question is this. When shooting raw you can use WB presets to get correct or preferable WB tones. I can move temperature slider with jpegs also. I know raw uses a temperature slider and jpeg uses a numerical slider. What is the difference? Is it more precise with raw files or two totally different things?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

You may get banding with jpg that you probably wouldn't get with raw.

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

The difference is actually pretty simple. In the raw case the processing begins with the sensor data and the WB slider is directly adjusting the color temperature hence the temperature number is meaningful. In the JPEG case the camera processing has made that adjustment, applied a camera color calibration, cast the image into a gambit (usually sRGB), and compressed the image to JPEG before LR gets it hands on it. Now there is no practical way to make the control reflect a color temperature.Hence, Adobe uses an arbitrary number.

If you want a show and tell set your camera to tungsten and take a photo with flash or daylight and save both raw and JPEG. Get both smurf pictures into LR and play with the WB. You will have to tell LR to treat them as separate photos (there is a check box somewhere) or else LR will only develop the raw.

Mi630

Thanks. That actually makes sense to me. I was afraid someone would respond in a way that I would not be able to understand...all technical and such. Thanks for the response. I usually shoot in jpeg so always wondered what the difference was.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Strategy when using JPEG is different from using raw. In JPEG mode, you really need to match the color temperature of the light source (or mix) to the white balance setting on the camera.

Automatic White Balance is easily fooled by a large, brightly colored object. And the farther away from noon daylight is the light source color temperature, the greater the error you see in the results. The worst disparity is with low-wattage incandescents.

The presets (Daylight, Flash, Cloudy, Shade, Fluorescent, Incandescent...) are close. But for really good JPEGs, you need a reference target to set exposure AND CUSTOM (Nikon calls it Preset) WHITE BALANCE. If you mis-match your white balance setting in a JPEG, it is extremely hard to get a better white balance afterwards.

With raw capture, you can still use a reference target. The ColorChecker Passport is probably the most accurate if you're going for a duplication of reality. It has a Lightroom plug-in and a procedure that pops realistic color into your files. However, any standard exposure and white balance reference target will work with the eyedropper tool.

Also with raw capture, you can adjust white balance manually, with far less trouble than you would have with JPEGs.

Of course, it is difficult to impossible to get perfect results under sodium vapor, mercury vapor, some fluorescents, and some LED lamps. Those types of lights have "discontinuous spectra" — they emit light only at certain frequencies, not all visible frequencies. Only daylight and incandescent lights have truly continuous spectra. Daylight is heavily weighted towards blue, and incandescent toward red-amber...

CPR Loc: Nature Coast of Florida

I always relate raw vs jpg to "do it yourself kit" versus "ready to paint kit".
Kinda silly but raw provides you with all the little pieces and parts and you can put it together the way you want while with jpg the camera software has put it together the way the camera makers think you'll want it.

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

You are welcome and apparently lucky. I have what my wife calls "The Curse". I am 75 and a retired PhD engineer. She says I am too technical in my reasoning and stubborn in defending my obviously flawless opinion. I plead no contest!

You may have hit a sweet spot with your question. As I attempt to move from technically perfect photographs toward artistic photo with some of that emotional stuff I have come to the opinion that there is no perfect WB and exposure. They all have to do with the intent. Raw turns LR into a tool in exploring art after the exposure. If you were to produce the most scientifically correct rendering I guarantee your brain wouldn't enjoy the result. But I digress, as usual.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Uhh, no. The manufacturer provides many menu selections for processing JPEGs. You are not required to accept their defaults. Quite literally, millions of variations are possible, and some models even let you download custom response curves.

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

If you mistakenly set jpeg to "tungsten" while shooting in daylight the colors not needed to produce a tungsten balance are deleted. This makes it impossible to use sliders to get a daylight image - the colors are already deleted by the jpeg processor.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Most folks only make that mistake once or twice...

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

Yes, but if the third time ruins priceless pictures you have blown the budget.

An anal picky comment, don't blame the lack of ability to edit on JPEG. In these cases the image is toast before JPEG compression. The intent of JPEG is to include in the file only information necessary to produce the quality print or screen image. And it does a fine job of that.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Agreed!

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

an excellent analogy

NoSocks Loc: quonochontaug, rhode island

U