JPG. vs RAW on White Balance: Recently I posted some photos and I had pulled the JPG files from the camera instead of the RAW files. When today I compared the RAW files to the JPG...

azted Loc: Las Vegas, NV.

Recently I posted some photos and I had pulled the JPG files from the camera instead of the RAW files. When today I compared the RAW files to the JPG, they looked completely different. I noticed that the White Balance (Kelvin) and the tint were different, areas I rarely adjust when post processing, and these were in late daylight anyway. Why would the JPG processor adjust the white balance and tint to 5000 and 0 where the RAW original was 4040 and -3.6? In fact, all the JPG files were at 5000 and 0, whereas the Raw files were all different? This is on the Sony A99.

Robertl594 Loc: Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and Nantucket

I always shoot RAW so I have the ability to adjust my white balance and increase the mount of data you keep. Your jpeg images are interpretations that your camera is making from the sensor and imbedding those into your images. You are also downgrading your bit depth from 12/14 bit to 8. In other words, your tonal values are going from 4096 to 256. Not a good thing.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Robertl594 wrote:

I always shoot RAW so I have the ability to adjust my white balanceand increase the mount of data you keep. Your jpeg images are interpretations that your camera is making from the sensor and imbedding those into your images. You are also downgrading your bit depth from 12/14 bit to 8. In other words, your tonal values are going from 4096 to 256. Not a good thing.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

azted wrote:

Recently I posted some photos and I had pulled the... (show quote)

What software were you using to examine the WB values in the JPEGs? Your answer is probably in the way the software you used handles JPEGs versus RAW files. JPEGS have their WB already set but the values used to set the WB are not available to the software displaying the JPEG and so it just defaults to some arbitrary value. I use Capture One and it will display all JPEGs with the values temp = 5000, tint = 0.

azted Loc: Las Vegas, NV.

Ysarex wrote:

What software were you using to examine the WB values in the JPEGs? Your answer is probably in the way the software you used handles JPEGs versus RAW files. JPEGS have their WB already set but the values used to set the WB are not available to the software displaying the JPEG and so it just defaults to some arbitrary value. I use Capture One and it will display all JPEGs with the values temp = 5000, tint = 0.

You hit it. I use Capture One also. So the software is giving an arbitrary number? It is also interesting that the Kelvin for each photo in RAW is different. Thanks for the info!

azted Loc: Las Vegas, NV.

Robertl594 wrote:

I always shoot RAW so I have the ability to adjust my white balance and increase the mount of data you keep. Your jpeg images are interpretations that your camera is making from the sensor and imbedding those into your images. You are also downgrading your bit depth from 12/14 bit to 8. In other words, your tonal values are going from 4096 to 256. Not a good thing.

I have lately been shooting RAW and JPG because that is what is suggested for Event Photography. Normally I only shoot RAW, or at least for the past several years. I accidentally transferred the JPGs to the computer instead of the RAW files. That is how this started.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

azted wrote:

You hit it. I use Capture One also. So the software is giving an arbitrary number?

Yep, C1 is a little odd out in that most raw converters will set temp and tint both to zero when they're displaying an RGB image file.

azted wrote:

It is also interesting that the Kelvin for each photo in RAW is different. Thanks for the info!

Odds are your camera is set to auto-WB which would produce a different K value for each raw file. Shoot a dozen photos with the WB set to a preset like daylight and then see what C1 does. Make sure C1 isn't auto adjusting the WB.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

RAW files themselves don't have a white balance, you select the white balance. RAW editors only give you a starting point.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Raw data DO have a WB, sorry to disagree. I set a WB in my cameras to 5500K and that is exactly what I get in post. Yes, because it is a RAW data that WB can be changed.
I use proprietary software to edit my RAW data.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

WB values are not applied to raw data when saved by the camera. The WB values used by the camera to create the JPEG are saved in the raw file's metadata fork and may be read by raw processing software. WB values are applied when the camera creates the JPEG photo and are applied when a raw converter creates an RGB photo.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

camerapapi wrote:

Raw data DO have a WB, sorry to disagree. I set a WB in my cameras to 5500K and that is exactly what I get in post. Yes, because it is a RAW data that WB can be changed.
I use proprietary software to edit my RAW data.

A metadata WB value is chosen to guide the raw converter. But that is, completely arbitrary and can be adjusted to any value that you'd like. Essentially all potential WB values are contained in the raw.

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

in JPG the camera edits your photos as it sees fit.
In RAW you get what you saw... its your job to then edit them
so the camera made the adjustments it wanted...