Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-07-2008, 06:38 AM   #1
Junior Member
JCharles's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bridgeport, CT
Posts: 26
RAW vs Manual White Balance for Color Cast Correction

Hi All:

I'm experiencing a yellow cast on my indoor shots using a k 110d with the kit lens. As I want to achieve the best results possible; would I be better off learning to use RAW or just get good at manual white balancing with a card and shot jpeg?

11-07-2008, 06:42 AM   #2
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
Shooting Jpeg is fine for basic shooting. But for higher quality results RAW is often the better choice. You might want to read this thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-photography-knowledge-base/40647-s...-benifits.html

You should adjust the WB for indoor light shooting though. Take a test shot and adjust th WB from that to get as close as possible to the correct colour. Using a gray card can make this much easier in either format.
11-07-2008, 06:44 AM   #3
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
It all depends on what you want to do with the photos.

If you don't want the yellow cast from indoor lighting, you can set the WB to match either incandescent or flourescent, and be close. Then even in JPEG you can fine tune it in an image editor. Raw can do a finer job, no doubt, because you are dealing with 12 bit color not 8 bit as in JPEG, but I have not really seen an issue in this area and I shoot almost entirely JPEG.
11-07-2008, 07:23 AM   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Outside of Philly
Posts: 1,564
RAW has MANY more advantages besides being able to correct WB easily.

First off, your camera ONLY shoots RAW. When you select JPG, the camera takes the RAW data and pipes it into it's on-board JPG processor to generate the JPG "image" to save to the card.

When you shoot RAW, the RAW "data" goes directly to the card and is not an image.

To generate an image, you use a RAW processor (software on your PC) which turns the data into a viewable image, much like the camera's JPG processor. The difference is that YOU have complete control over the image generation process. You can change the white balance, adjust the contrast/brightness/black point/etc....

So you can leave these decisions up to the camera's little processor (and hope it makes the right decisions since they are irreversible), or save the decisions for later where YOU have complete control over it.

Think of film, do you want to just drop the roll off at the pharmacy and get a bunch of 4x6 prints back (and NO negatives)? Or do you want the negatives?

11-07-2008, 07:36 AM   #5
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by egordon99 Quote
RAW has MANY more advantages besides being able to correct WB easily.

First off, your camera ONLY shoots RAW. When you select JPG, the camera takes the RAW data and pipes it into it's on-board JPG processor to generate the JPG "image" to save to the card.
no disagreement, but this takes up a lot more space, and depending upon the final intent of the image, and the use of many shooters, JPEG is usually suitable.
QuoteQuote:
When you shoot RAW, the RAW "data" goes directly to the card and is not an image.
while the data goes directly to the card, yoou are giving the impression that the JPEG image is final and cannot be edited, this is simply a false impression
QuoteQuote:
To generate an image, you use a RAW processor (software on your PC) which turns the data into a viewable image, much like the camera's JPG processor. The difference is that YOU have complete control over the image generation process. You can change the white balance, adjust the contrast/brightness/black point/etc....
you have broad controls over these same points when you are out shooting JPEG, and you still have to learn them
QuoteQuote:

So you can leave these decisions up to the camera's little processor (and hope it makes the right decisions since they are irreversible), or save the decisions for later where YOU have complete control over it.
please stop misleading the OP. JPEG conversions are not totally irreversable, there is a lot that can be done and providing the initial JPEG was close to the correct settings it is easy to correct fine errors in a photo editor
QuoteQuote:

Think of film, do you want to just drop the roll off at the pharmacy and get a bunch of 4x6 prints back (and NO negatives)? Or do you want the negatives?
what a load of BS. you are comparing the JPEG that comes out of the camera, at full MP resolution only lacking in the difference between 8 and 12 bit color depth, with a 600 by 480 pixle resolution used to make a 4x6 print.

In short, all the processing and thinking yoou do at home with raw can be done in camera, providing you take the time to learn how to set up your camera, and adjust sharpness as you like, contrast, WB, and saturation as the situation dictates etc .

the fundamental majopr benefit of raw is slightly better recvovery of completly wrong exposures.
11-07-2008, 07:42 AM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Outside of Philly
Posts: 1,564
No one's ever critiqued my essay before :-)

No where do I say you can't do further editing to a JPG. MY point was that by shooting JPG in-camera, you are limiting yourself to the camera's JPG processor. Sure, you can figure out where to set the contrast (from 1-5) in the field for a particular shot (ditto for sharpness, saturation etc....) but ACR (or other RAW processors) give you much finer control over these, and you're not locked in to HOW the on-board JPG processor interprets the RAW data.

Fair point on the 4x6 vs. negative comment, I'll try to word it differently.

I disagree on the fundamental benefit of raw being better recovery of completely wrong exposures. Again, my "main point" of my essay is that shooting in RAW gives you much more control over the image generation process.

It is NOT about fixing botched exposures (although that does happen sometime )
11-07-2008, 08:14 AM   #7
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by egordon99 Quote
No one's ever critiqued my essay before :-)

No where do I say you can't do further editing to a JPG. MY point was that by shooting JPG in-camera, you are limiting yourself to the camera's JPG processor. Sure, you can figure out where to set the contrast (from 1-5) in the field for a particular shot (ditto for sharpness, saturation etc....) but ACR (or other RAW processors) give you much finer control over these, and you're not locked in to HOW the on-board JPG processor interprets the RAW data.

Fair point on the 4x6 vs. negative comment, I'll try to word it differently.

I disagree on the fundamental benefit of raw being better recovery of completely wrong exposures. Again, my "main point" of my essay is that shooting in RAW gives you much more control over the image generation process.

It is NOT about fixing botched exposures (although that does happen sometime )
There is always a first time for everything and don't take it too bad as we are probably much closer on understanding that what is written.

While I don't disagree RAW is much more flexible and if you have a good raw converter you can do much more with it, I just have not seen the need myself. But then, and this is important, I am from the film era, where I had 3 film bodies when I travelled, one with 100 ISO print film, one with 400 ISO slide film sometimes pushed to 800, and one with B&W but always pushed either to 1600 or 3200.

I had to deal with high contrast scenes by using the lowest ISO films, and low contrast scenes with higher ISO filme because they were more contrasty.

Now, I look at the scene and change the contrast settings to suit. Same with WB, although on the K10D it is much easier, from my understanding than other bodies, because you can do it interactively on the viewing screen with the last image shot (and stored in the buffer)

When I shoot raw, and again, it is a simple push of the button, is when I know conciously that I am at the limit of my equipment, and that I need to be absolutely in control of everything, to get a good image, but for the rest, I shoot JPEG, and it is not an issue of only looking at 4x6 images, I view my images on a 22 inch wide screen, at 1680 by 1050 pixles and print up to 11 x 17.
11-07-2008, 08:14 AM   #8
Veteran Member
lbam's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 443
I'd like to add a question to this, the I've got a feeling the simple answer is going to be "raw files are just raw files"
I always shoot in raw, but on my last shoot I used a three tone white balance/grey card (Black grey, and white stripes), and did a manual white balance at the time of the shoot. Consequently all the pictures I took came out almost dead on in terms of white balance which is great, and has reduced the pp time.

But here's the question, regarding white balance only (not exposure), and I'm trying to word this right..

Did I gain anything over just taking a picture of the card, and using it in "lightroom" as a post process white balance, to be applied to all the pics?

When I was sold the card (and I am happy I bought it for $12), I was told sometimes the blue channel for example can be way off, and using the card will give me more latitude...

Like I said at the beginning, my feeling is the answer is just going to be raw=raw.. lol

11-07-2008, 08:23 AM   #9
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by lbam Quote
I'd like to add a question to this, the I've got a feeling the simple answer is going to be "raw files are just raw files"
I always shoot in raw, but on my last shoot I used a three tone white balance/grey card (Black grey, and white stripes), and did a manual white balance at the time of the shoot. Consequently all the pictures I took came out almost dead on in terms of white balance which is great, and has reduced the pp time.

But here's the question, regarding white balance only (not exposure), and I'm trying to word this right..

Did I gain anything over just taking a picture of the card, and using it in "lightroom" as a post process white balance, to be applied to all the pics?

When I was sold the card (and I am happy I bought it for $12), I was told sometimes the blue channel for example can be way off, and using the card will give me more latitude...

Like I said at the beginning, my feeling is the answer is just going to be raw=raw.. lol
I think that when you set your camera up, the JPEG conversion settings are carried into the processing with the RAW files. As a result, if you do your set up correctly at the time, yes you save a ton of post precessing later, even if you shoot RAW. This might be dependant on the raw processor, and since I shoot mostly JPEG, I am not the best authority on this, but except for sharpness, which pentax processes uniquely in camera, I have found that it is very difficult to tell the difference in displayed image from aWB and contrast point of view when I compar raw and jpeg of the same image in my processor
11-07-2008, 08:29 AM   #10
Veteran Member
lbam's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 443
I guess what I'm asking is.. does a white balance card of the type I used actually change the raw file? it is, after all, a manual white balance calibration.
11-07-2008, 08:56 AM   #11
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by lbam Quote
I guess what I'm asking is.. does a white balance card of the type I used actually change the raw file? it is, after all, a manual white balance calibration.
I think that when you do the manual WB, as I stated above, the settings are carried in the EXIF data, and applied when viewing to the RAW data on your PC, they don't change the raw data but they do give the viewer a starting place.

There would be no difference to taking a photo of the card, and performing a WB adjustment in your PC afterwards and then applying it as a batch process to each image.
11-07-2008, 09:04 AM   #12
Veteran Member
lbam's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 443
Thanks, that's what I thought

I'm still happy I used the card though.
11-07-2008, 09:31 AM   #13
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by lbam Quote
Thanks, that's what I thought

I'm still happy I used the card though.
I don't disagree. My own view is that the more time you spend up front getting things as close as possible, the happier you will be with the result, regardless of format
11-07-2008, 09:57 AM   #14
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by lbam Quote
When I was sold the card (and I am happy I bought it for $12), I was told sometimes the blue channel for example can be way off, and using the card will give me more latitude...
The answer actually depends on which camera you are using. My recollection is the folks like GordonBGood over on dpreview determined that the DS (and perhaps some other models, but definitely not all) actually *did* apply WB in some way to the RAW data, with the result being that getting the WB close before shooting would reduce the likelihood of a channel clipping (and red is the most likely vitcim).

But assuming you aren't clipping a channel because the WB is so far off, there would be no difference that can't be completely adjusted via RAW processing. And on whichever models *don't* apply WB (at least partially) to RAW, there is indeed no difference whatsoever.
11-07-2008, 11:01 AM   #15
Veteran Member
lbam's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 443
Thanks Marc, I think you're on the right track. Let's assume you get the white balance "perfect" by calibration during the shoot using a card, but the exposure wrong, you might have less colour issues as you push the exposure to it's "correct" value in post processing.. At least that's what I'm wondering.
I know it's kinda splitting hairs, but I'd like to know eventually.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, cast, color cast, dslr, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Preserving Color Cast With RAW zombieCat Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 18 07-05-2010 01:04 AM
White balance - does it affect RAW? esman7 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 12 07-29-2009 05:31 AM
Green cast to white balance gatekeeper Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 01-09-2009 05:36 PM
Color Correction in Raw joreed3 Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 2 02-11-2008 09:39 AM
Manual White Balance Flaco Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 01-02-2007 04:19 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:46 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top