Does white balance matter in RAW?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neverhood311

Whoa, this thread got wildly off track since I last checked it.

---

Do we get extra points for that?

PS: seriously, you had some pretty good replies. Now it's just the vultures picking over the bare bones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neverhood311

Whoa, this thread got wildly off track since I last checked it.

---

Dammit man - that's what we're here for. That and the baaanaaanaas.

#does little vulture dance#

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carregwen

PS: seriously, you had some pretty good replies. Now it's just the vultures picking over the bare bones.

---

Yes, it's very true. Thanks to all who shed some light on the answer to my question.

NO...

If want to learn more, see UniWB http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read....ssage=32188398

Balancing the channels with filters
http://www.libraw.org/articles/magen...n-digicam.html
http://www.club-nikon.ru/forum/index...1&#entry308411
There is no cc30m multi-coated, but the FL-D from Hoya

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neverhood311

Whoa, this thread got wildly off track since I last checked it.

---

...
some WB needed after all ... or ... is this a RAW topic ? ;)

tutorials - white-balance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tassebem

...
some WB needed after all ... or ... is this a RAW topic ? ;)

---

It was 3.5 years ago when the last post was made prior to yours ...

Let me muddy the waters somewhat in a thread that has already become redundant...

There are certainly times in which the white balance of the light illuminating your subject matters. That is when you are shooting under a mixed lighting situation, say: part of your image illuminated by fluorescent light (often the background) with another portion of your image (often the closer main subject) illuminated by electronic flash...

Despite the ease of adjusting your color balance in camera RAW, you can have a devil of a time adjusting for that mixed light situation. That is when it may be best to filter your flash to match the color of the florescent lights (usually with a green filter) and then adjust the color balance of your image globally in Camera Raw...

Another thing, if you are shooting in daylight and have chosen a tungsten color balance (even when shooting RAW) the image you may view on your LCD monitor will be skewed.

Additionally, if I select an inappropriate color balance in shooting RAW, it will open in Camera Raw skewed to that color. As an example, it will look very blue if I have set the camera to tungsten and shot the image in daylight. Of course, it is easy to compensate for this but, IMO, using the Auto white balance brings me closer to the optimum right from the start...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rpcrowe

Let me muddy the waters somewhat in a thread that has already become redundant...

There are certainly times in which the white balance of the light illuminating your subject matters. That is when you are shooting under a mixed lighting situation, say: part of your image illuminated by fluorescent light (often the background) with another portion of your image (often the closer main subject) illuminated by electronic flash...

Despite the ease of adjusting your color balance in camera RAW, you can have a devil of a time adjusting for that mixed light situation. That is when it may be best to filter your flash to match the color of the florescent lights (usually with a green filter) and then adjust the color balance of your image globally in Camera Raw...

Another thing, if you are shooting in daylight and have chosen a tungsten color balance (even when shooting RAW) the image you may view on your LCD monitor will be skewed.

Additionally, if I select an inappropriate color balance in shooting RAW, it will open in Camera Raw skewed to that color. As an example, it will look very blue if I have set the camera to tungsten and shot the image in daylight. Of course, it is easy to compensate for this but, IMO, using the Auto white balance brings me closer to the optimum right from the start...

---

Thanks for what I think is a most helpful post !
I have read the whole thread and your post reaffirms the same principles posted before.

Thank you !

New member here - first search on WB clipping brought me to this thread - glad you kept it around!
Heard confusing (brief) discussion of this at photography seminar - left with impression the WB setting could actually affect the RAW file. But from this thread, it reaffirms my original understanding that RAW is RAW and unless the photog changes settings based on camera jpg, es macht nicht.

A question not addressed - is this the same for all manufacturers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdverb

New member here - first search on WB clipping brought me to this thread - glad you kept it around!
Heard confusing (brief) discussion of this at photography seminar - left with impression the WB setting could actually affect the RAW file. But from this thread, it reaffirms my original understanding that RAW is RAW and unless the photog changes settings based on camera jpg, es macht nicht.

A question not addressed - is this the same for all manufacturers?

---

Welcome - great to have you with us.

I can't say "all" categorically, but probably. WB is a processing choice (either in-camera or post-processing), so it doesn't affect the capture. However, WB selection may affect the choice of exposure which of course will affect the RAW data captured.

Try it - take a couple of RAW shots (camera on tripod) at diff WB settings - process at same WB settings - and see if there's a difference.