Many of us already know the answer. But for anyone who needs proof, here is some evidence.

Now you can't look directly at a raw image. The raw information captured under the Bayer (or X-Trans) array needs to be converted (demosaiced) into an RGB image. Even the image displayed by RawDigger has been converted to make it visible. The only way to determine what the raw file contains is to look at the raw histogram.

The histograms you see on the back of your camera or in your raw editor are derived from the converted image, not the raw file.

In this image the camera was set to Daylight WB. The camera was at 1/50s @ f/4 ISO 1600:

https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2021/8/22/560562-dfc_5961_rd.jpg

RawDigger shows the converted image on the left using the WB "As Shot" - the camera's WB. The histograms on the right show how the red, green and blue raw channels recorded.

In the second image the camera was set to Incandescent WB. The camera was still at 1/50s @ f/4 ISO 1600:

https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2021/8/22/560932-dfc_5962_rd.jpg

Since RawDigger is still showing the image As Shot, the camera's WB made the image come out better. But notice the histograms. They are virtually identical to the first example.

But the JPEG histograms on the camera's LCD are different. They would also be different in a raw editor since those are also JPEG histograms, not raw histograms.
Nice clear summary with great examples.


What's more, the number of overexposed pixels are almost exactly the same and the highlight warnings were flashing in the same places with the same intensity.

And to top things off, the recommended exposure using Matrix metering was the same for both images.

So the camera's meter and blinkies are tied directly to the raw file, not the white balanced JPEG (this may not be the case with Active D-Lighting turned on). And the raw file content is indeed independent of the WB setting.

Later I will post another example taken in broad daylight.

ClarkJohnson said... AI programs stem from long processing time caused by inadequate graphics cards and graphics memory. The Topaz site has their recommended good-better-best computer memory configurations.

CLARK AND TOPAZ ARE RIGHT, AND YOU MUST CONFIGURE YOUR RAM MEMORY IN THE BIOS. ALSO TO DO A FAST TRICK ONE NEEDS AN ADIQUOTE GRAPHIS CARD WITH LOTS OF MEMORY

When I built my present computer about a year ago... a COVID Bordom inoculation. I did some UT watching on how to turn DDR-4 memory in the BIOS. The BIOS reverts to a default value for sluggish memory a waste of fast thinking memory. No, I did not overclock, but yes I did push to the fastest suggested configuration. My DDR-4 was rated at 3200 and was set at a default 1600... DDR4 is low-cost now I have 32 gigs of memory. I recall a comparison between 2 16s and 4 8s... before buying one should look that up.. I have 4 sticks, but not because of any good reason, just bought a few months apart... spent some of my COVID money.

One of the latest CPU sales thing is to add graphics... well yes it costs a lot... adding a g after my 3600 would have been a $ waste since I have 4 gig of DDR5 on my NVIDIA card, a 1050Ti. The 1050Ti and the 1060Ti are under $200. The 1050Ti was an excellent card 2 y before and for still photos is still a good performer. Gamers go crazy and buy super cards ... not deeded for photo editing. Do ask Mr Google for current up-to-date advice. Without the Ti there is only 2 gig of on card memory [I recall?].

Have the AF VR Nikkor 80-400 4.5 5.6 D, bought it for virtually the same reasons as you. It did not do the job for me (by all reports, the new version is better). Even on my DX 7200, not enough reach. I bought the Nikon 200-500, and it did most of what I needed. I added a TC 14 E II and it did it all. I have lots posted and usually identify the gear used. It is not particularly large and heavy, but pretty much a rig for far away subject matter. I usually have a shorter zoom along just in case. Best of luck with your decision and purchase!

An extended warranty is FREE.

When you buy a product/camera with most VISA/Master Cards the manufactures' warranty is DOUBLED. One year becomes two, two = four, and longer are extended less. Check your card's benefits in the fine print.

You buy the $1,500 camera with, say, the Citi Visa (mine is partnered with Costco) the extra warranty is doubled provided: you maintain a copy of the original mfg's warranty; Your purchase receipt. AKA: FREE EXTENDED WARRANTY.

in example you have a one year warranty and in the 18-month the shutter stops working. Nikon quotes $425.00 to repair. You file a claim with Cita Visa sending the original warranty, your purchase receipt showing you used the Citi Visa to purchase the camera, and the repair estimate. Bingo! A check for $425 arrives in your mailbox.

I also have an all risk policy from USAA that is very inexpensive that covers damage, drops, etc. About 15-years ago my D90 fell from my SUV to the concrete. Nikon repair estimate $1,800. A new D90 $1,950. USAA sent me a check for $1,950.

The dates and figures are my approximate memory however a true story.

Wow ! You’re quite the forensics expert !

Gotta agree that if it follows its own path ... not the pixel rows ... then it’s not likely to be a digital artifact.

Remarkably straight but not perfectly straight, weird but not impossible for a hair or a fiber.

One thing that bugged me when I was thinking it was an artifact was the way it ended before it went all the way across the frame, but I do see what you see ! So acoarst artifact is ruled out, and foreign object is in.

I wonder if it was not as long as it’s shadow but was shorter, fairly straight, and protruding offa the edge of the shutter blade set ? Then it would leave a shadow that traces the motion of the shutter ... til it fell off the blade causing the shadow to end abruptly before crossing fully across the frame ? That would also explain why it appears so remarkably straight but not actually following the bayer grid.

Oh well. Just the meandering of idle thoughts ...