Quote:
Originally Posted by R_Fredrick_Smith
I've seen no statement to this effect either about it being "proven". I don't know where Rolando got this idea.
|
See my long post above, basically from two professors with extensive background in digital imaging and RAW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R_Fredrick_Smith
The data is exactly the same either way...
|
Nope, been proven, see books by Mikkel Aaland, specifically "Shooting Digital," pages 255-264.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R_Fredrick_Smith
But it is still much better to have the WB set correctly and the parameters in a reasonable range...It also takes more work later in RAW converter to set the WB than if its already set properly. It is especially true in the example shots that Rolando was discussing. If you try to set it after the fact, you are just making a guess. If you do a CWB up front, then your starting position in the RAW converter will be very close correct already....
|
Very true, I like to work efficiently, smart, and accurate. The beauty here is that setting the white balance while shooting RAW is not like the costs and quality difference between da-b's and da-better lights. (da-grin)...thanks, rg sends!
(image of Holley shot with Canon 5D, RAW mode, white balance at 3700K, lighting by Hensel VELA 1500ws, Hensel Beauty Dish, 3/4 CTO placed in front of the dish)
Re: White balance in RAW - necessary ?