Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 298627" data-attributes="member: 12496">?    Sorry, I really don't want to get into this.  <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />    Do you even shoot Raw?  Which Raw software?  We have extremely different views about that.  I cannot imagine your view.All lines are wrong, but this line "Whatever settings you had set in camera that has been applied to the RAW file." is 180 out and absolutely incorrect.  Raw is Raw, and absolutely zero camera settings have been applied. Raw is Raw. Most settings probably are in the Exif data, but are not applied to the Raw image.  Raw is Raw. There are two cases that might be causing confusion. One, there is an embedded JPG in the Raw file, and that JPG does have the camera settings performed on it.  This allows the camera to show the histogram, and to show the JPG image on the camera rear LCD, since Raw is not usable for either purpose.   The camera settings however are not necessarily the same as we will do later in raw.   We quickly discover when we open the Raw file that we do not have those JPG settings. Raw is Raw. And Nikon Raw software is one case that might be causing confusion, probably most likely here ? To most Raw editors, this Exif data means largely "unavailable" and we are on our own to process the Raw file (not really any disadvantage, it is why we shoot Raw, to make our own settings later, after we can see the image, to know what it needs). Nikon Raw software is the exception.  It knows how to access the Nikon Exif, and yes, Nikon can add most of the camera settings at the later time (if desired).  Only true of Nikon Raw software however (which IMO has other disadvantages). Adobe Raw for example, can attempt to retrieve White Balance (only WB, and just somewhat at that), but no other camera settings are retrieved from Exif. However, even WB is a problem, because color temperature degrees K is NOT in the Exif.  There is color data but which is Nikon proprietary.  Adobe makes a good try at it, but it is never right on.  It is necessary (at least better) to do White Balance ourself in post processing.  Even if we could get WB, the camera WB is crude and most likely wrong (does not match the light present).  This is why we shoot Raw. Sorry, but that is the extent that I care to argue the point.   Just not worth it.  <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />  I will try to answer any questions, and help any way I can, but I don't care to spend time debating this notion. </blockquote>

Verification