Why the color difference? (Page 4): Yes. It simply comes into play for posting on the web and some printing companies. The "transportable image" created by the camera/editor, ie. JPEG.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

rcarol wrote:

If you are shooting RAW, color difference is irrelevant.

Yes.
It simply comes into play for posting on the web and some printing companies.
The "transportable image" created by the camera/editor, ie. JPEG.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

CHG_CANON wrote:

Note camera setting: WB mode - Auto Ambience. (ak... (show quote)

Paul has pointed you in the right direction. You can correct this difference in your RAW editor by adjusting the color temperature to the same value. An alternative is to set the color temperature to a fixed value when taking photos.
In either case you can adjust in the RAW editor.

rwm283main Loc: Terryville, CT

I agree. High contrast situations similar to this is most likely the problem with even a slight shift in framing. Spot metering on the two bear would have given you the consistency between the two images

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Photolady2014 wrote:

What is causing such a color difference between th... (show quote)

Notice the difference in the amount of snow and the amount of bare ground in the images? The Auto WB probably changed the second image due to that. It was just enough different, that the system thought a different WB was needed.

Photolady2014 Loc: Southwest Colorado

Again, thanks everyone for your 2 cents worth! I understand why auto WB is not always the best, but I know I would probably forget to change it! Also, like in this situation, the bears worked their way down the road and it started out sunny, then cloudy, then snow to heavy snow, back to sunny. I would not have thought to change the WB while picking up the tripod and running down the road to stay ahead of them.... I know with more experience etc, I will remember or should...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Photolady2014 wrote:

Again, thanks everyone for your 2 cents worth! I understand why auto WB is not always the best, but I know I would probably forget to change it! Also, like in this situation, the bears worked their way down the road and it started out sunny, then cloudy, then snow to heavy snow, back to sunny. I would not have thought to change the WB while picking up the tripod and running down the road to stay ahead of them.... I know with more experience etc, I will remember or should...

Is there really a lesson or change to take away from the occurrence of two different temperature images? Anything that involves futzing more with your camera, instead of shooting wildlife, would seem to be the wrong lesson. You're a RAW shooter, not a SOOC JPEGer. Who really cares what the camera thought? Given we're talking about bears, I'd argue both images are 'wrong'. One is clearly too cold, but the other is too warm. Adjust your K temp and tint and make every one of them 'just right' from the comfort of your home.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Longshadow wrote:

"Evaluative metering" evaluated the amount of dark (grass) and light (snow) differently between the two shots because of the amount of snow in each picture.

Slight difference in framing caused difference in exposure, slightly washing out colors.

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

CHG_CANON wrote:

Is there really a lesson or change to take away fr... (show quote)

If one is shooting RAW none of the camera settings other then the ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed and Focus matter. (Some cameras apply low ISO noise reduction before creating thr RAW file.) Many, myself included, set the WB (or whatever) to auto so the camera will write its guess in the EXIF data so the PP software can use it as a starting point.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Jack 13088 wrote:

If one is shooting RAW none of the camera settings other then the ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed and Focus matter. (Some cameras apply low ISO noise reduction before creating thr RAW file.) Many, myself included, set the WB (or whatever) to auto so the camera will write its guess in the EXIF data so the PP software can use it as a starting point.

ditto.

Abo

CHG_CANON wrote:

And what part of success being defined by the absence of a mirror would be considered a metaphor?

You tell me.

Abo

Jack 13088 wrote:

If one is shooting RAW none of the camera settings other then the ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed and Focus matter. (Some cameras apply low ISO noise reduction before creating thr RAW file.) Many, myself included, set the WB (or whatever) to auto so the camera will write its guess in the EXIF data so the PP software can use it as a starting point.

What does "RAW" stand for?

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Abo wrote:

What does "RAW" stand for?

Same as food:

Uncooked.

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

DirtFarmer wrote:

Same as food:

Uncooked.

Agreed!

Abo

DirtFarmer wrote:

Same as food:

Uncooked.

If that's true, then it's a word and not an acronym
and is "raw", not RAW.

However everyone writes "RAW" so it must not mean uncooked... unless everyone is wrong.

Abo

See last post on page 4 Jack

Jack 13088 wrote:

Agreed!