Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 546213" data-attributes="member: 12496">What I hear is advocating camera Custom WB with raw, so I'm curious why?I would argue that the Custom WB method apples to shooting JPG, and would&nbsp; be good for JPG, since JPG has less range to readjust it later. But to&nbsp; me, it makes no sense for raw, since WB is not added to raw data. What would be the point?&nbsp; Raw&nbsp; probably could recover WB from the Exif, but the point of raw is to be&nbsp; able do it after we can see what we're doing, when we can fix what it needs.I do also use Auto WB with raw.&nbsp; I am no fan of Auto WB as an end result, and that is not in raw data either, but Auto does handle the rear LCD preview image and the histogram for raw, good enough for that, at least ballpark.&nbsp; Otherwise to me, in raw, WB seems best ignored until later.As to the consistency of post processing in raw, my notion (non-factual theory) is that WB seems to be done on the raw data before conversion.&nbsp; Color temperature degrees K is not in the Exif, but what is there is like these Bayer values (this is Flash WB):WB RB Levels :&nbsp;&nbsp; 1.6875 1.15234375 1 1&nbsp; &nbsp; WB GRBG Levels :&nbsp;&nbsp; 256 432 295 256&nbsp; &nbsp; (same values in another place, Bayer Green Red Blue Green, divide by 256)Multipliers to implement WB.The two green values are 1, but still, why else would they be there?It would make sense to do WB before gamma conversion because gamma has to be decoded.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 546213, member: 12496"] What I hear is advocating camera Custom WB with raw, so I'm curious why? I would argue that the Custom WB method apples to shooting JPG, and would be good for JPG, since JPG has less range to readjust it later. But to me, it makes no sense for raw, since WB is not added to raw data. What would be the point? Raw probably could recover WB from the Exif, but the point of raw is to be able do it after we can see what we're doing, when we can fix what it needs. I do also use Auto WB with raw. I am no fan of Auto WB as an end result, and that is not in raw data either, but Auto does handle the rear LCD preview image and the histogram for raw, good enough for that, at least ballpark. Otherwise to me, in raw, WB seems best ignored until later. As to the consistency of post processing in raw, my notion (non-factual theory) is that WB seems to be done on the raw data before conversion. Color temperature degrees K is not in the Exif, but what is there is like these Bayer values (this is Flash WB): WB RB Levels : 1.6875 1.15234375 1 1 WB GRBG Levels : 256 432 295 256 (same values in another place, Bayer Green Red Blue Green, divide by 256) Multipliers to implement WB. The two green values are 1, but still, why else would they be there? It would make sense to do WB before gamma conversion because gamma has to be decoded. [/QUOTE]

Verification