I've been reading some online photo articles of late, about shooting in RAW. Some of these folks, seem to shoot with very little regard, for how the camera shoots the image. I've seen suggestions, where they shoot, using very minute amounts of compensation if any, and set color to Neutral or Standard, then hope to doll it up in the editor. Now most of us, I assume, would want to get the camera shot as close to perfect as we can, but the consensus I see about RAW is just that...Shoot a basic RAW image then edit white balance, color, compensation etc, in an editor. What are your thoughts?
Yes, absolutely no regard or concern for the camera settings (other than Exposure). It simply does not matter if it is Standard or Neutral or Vivid. This very good reason is simply because those camera settings (all settings) are NOT IN THE RAW IMAGE. Raw is Raw. We do those settings later in the software, AFTER WE CAN SEE WHAT IT NEEDS, AND SEE WHAT IS USEFUL. That's one idea of Raw (Raw has several good ideas). It is Lossless editing, meaning, we do Not have to shift tones back and forth to undo those camera settings (probably set six months ago) before we do the right settings for this scene, which now we can see first. If you actually want Vivid, you can do it then, and see the result before using it. It is lossless editing, you can always get back your pristine original Raw data (but which would not be true if the camera settings could have screwed it up first).
Raw files do also include an embedded Large JPG file, which does contain those camera settings. This is because Raw is Raw, and the rear LCD is RGB, and cannot show Raw, so it shows the JPG. Also, the histogram is shown from this embedded JPG. And surely computer codex that can show Raw thumbnails also show the JPG. Simple photo editor programs like Irfanview and Faststone, which "open Raw files" merely open and work on the embedded JPG (they are the furthest thing from a Raw editor).
So saying, this embedded JPG shown on the rear LCD does show the camera settings, and the camera settings are in the Exif data, but those settings are not applied to the the Raw file data.
So while I dislike Auto WB errors, I use it with Raw, just to quickly see the rear LCD JPG a little better, and to see how approximate WB affects the histogram.
But I do the actual work and choices later in the Raw software.
Nikon Raw software (at least some of it) has had the option to apply those Exif setting to the Raw image later in the software (when it makes a RGB). Other brands cannot / do not do that. Adobe Raw can make a try at (only) White Balance (called As Shot WB). But the point is, why? It is rarely correct WB. And you are sitting there looking at the result, and you have the same tools to make it be like you want it to look?
Raw is the tool that can change your photographic life.