WB Auto? (Page 6): Except that's not true. You have to set WB for something, even shooting RAW, and a lot of people do set auto WB when shooting RAW.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

RWR wrote:

I think he meant that you would normally only set auto white balance for JPEGs, no point in it for RAW.

Except that's not true. You have to set WB for something, even shooting RAW, and a lot of people do set auto WB when shooting RAW.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

selmslie wrote:

They are out there but it will cost you. Several cameras can produce a TIFF SOOC. My Df can do it but I only get the TIFF, no raw file.

But with Active D-Lighting, watching for blinkies, and manual WB, I get more than I could with a JPEG SOOC - a lossless 16-bit file and just about everything that the 14-bit raw file can offer.

My Df TIFFs are only 8-bit SOOC, file size about 45MB. Exported from NEF, 16-bit TIFFs are about 92MB.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

RWR wrote:

My Df TIFFs are only 8-bit SOOC, file size about 45MB. Exported from NEF, 16-bit TIFFs are about 92MB.

You are correct. Nevertheless they are lossless and easily converted to 16-bit for editing. I've never actually used one.

Propwinder42 Loc: Santa Paula, California

I only shoot in jpeg because I do not have the talent nor the time to spend at my computer to adjust the photos that I shoot.
I make aircraft parts for a living which allows me to travel all over the world with my wife and shoot loads of images.
I am semi retired and work from my home my work provides us with the funds to have amazing experiences.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Picture Taker wrote:

burkphoto, you can improve the original jpg to improve it close to the RAW

Sure. But it would require more effort. Note that the scene I sampled was captured on an overcast day. The difference would have been much more pronounced in a scene recorded in full Noon daylight.

When I have the option (time, budget, desire, need...) I prefer to edit raw files for the additional controls and ease of control.

I worked in a lab where we processed about 5 million JPEGs a year. So I know just how far I do, and don’t, like to push them. JPEGs are great for many important uses, but for sheer flexibility and maximum technical quality, I use raw capture.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

JohnSwanda wrote:

Except that's not true. You have to set WB for something, even shooting RAW, and a lot of people do set auto WB when shooting RAW.

My user’s manual says it won’t be applied to a RAW file.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

RWR wrote:

My user’s manual says it won’t be applied to a RAW file.

I use ACR for RAW processing, and it opens RAW files with the WB "as shot" and you can adjust it from there.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

RWR wrote:

My user’s manual says it won’t be applied to a RAW file.

Correct... but:

All raw files store at least one JPEG preview image processed with the current camera menu settings. That JPEG contains an EXIF metadata table with all those menu settings — and more — stored in it.

When you open a raw file in most camera manufacturer’s supplied conversion software, it applies those settings for the initial conversion. Even Lightroom uses the hue and color temperature from the camera settings when it makes its initial conversion...

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

selmslie wrote:

You are correct. Nevertheless they are lossless and easily converted to 16-bit for editing. I've never actually used one.

Yep, lossless uncompressed is why I like TIFF.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

burkphoto wrote:

Correct... but:

All raw files store at least one JPEG preview image processed with the current camera menu settings. That JPEG contains an EXIF metadata table with all those menu settings — and more — stored in it.

When you open a raw file in most camera manufacturer’s supplied conversion software, it applies those settings for the initial conversion. Even Lightroom uses the hue and color temperature from the camera settings when it makes its initial conversion...

Right. And when you export a Tiff from RAW, it appears that camera menu settings are applied as well.

knoxworks Loc: Western Mass.

JohnSwanda wrote:

If you think you will shoot RAW eventually, you might consider shooting RAW + JPEG, so that when you move to RAW, you could go back and improve photos you are shooting now. I started out with JPEG also, but now I wish I had RAW files of my favorite shots from back then so I could improve them now.

He hit the nail on the head precisely. My experience is identical, I believe. Once I was "testing" an expensive Canon L series lens and got a once-in-a-lifetime shot, but only as a JPEG, which looks great but I wish I had a RAW file of the image. Now I still shoot in both RAW and JPEG.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

mwsilvers wrote:

That's great for you, but that doesn't clear up why the OP called the thread "WB Auto?" and proceeded to discuss a completely different topic in his first post.

RWR wrote:

I think he meant that you would normally only set auto white balance for JPEGs, no point in it for RAW.

I think the OP was really asking if, when shooting JPEG only (for whatever reason one might make that choice), is setting WB vital or can you rely on AWB? Since WB in a JPEG can be easily corrected in post with little loss to the image, I would say use AWB. If you are not concerned with recovering detail in highlights or shadows and do not plan to otherwise manipulate the image much, AWB is fine. One is still depending on appropriately choosing shutter speed, aperture and ISO without the RAW safety net. But if you are comfortable choosing those and do not want to worry about WB, AWB is fine.

There are lots of valid reasons to shoot JPEG only:
1) Conditions are good for getting what you need without RAW.
2) You are shooting action and want to shoot JPEG to a) max out FPS and b) not worry about a full SD card
3) You will not be able to do any post due to a quick turn around.
4) You want to train yourself to be better by shooting with the tighter restrictions of nailing your settings before pressing the shutter.
5) etc....

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

truee=jamesl wrote:

................. With RAW you can set or change your White Balance afterwards if you want or need to but with the JPEG you lose that possibility and it is permanently baked in.

Don't tell that to my editors.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

BigDaddy wrote:

Don't tell that to my editors.

Yeah. PP of WB just looks at a reference point and says if this pixel should = white and it is +xxx of white then I will interpret this color as white and interpret all other pixel colors as the read color -xxx. It is a calculation and does not really affect the detail of the photo to any great extent. But boosting shadows or reducing highlights is a whole different thing. However, if you are really good with your camera and conditions are favorable you may not need to adjust them much anyway.

But I still shoot RAW + JPEG.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

RWR wrote:

Yep, lossless uncompressed is why I like TIFF.

Huh. Thats why I like .PSD, .ACDC and .AFPHOTO Files.
Plus they save your edits.