- Messages
- 23,818
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
I was told the opposite at a Nikon workshop run by John Clements. He said it's good practice to choose the right WB for a given scene as it will affect tonality and luminance levels, even in RAW files. I've never actually tested it before as never questions the Nikon "guru', but just have now. Results below.Yeah, me too. I'm used to it from my Pentax days, because the dynamic range of the K10-D sensor isn't great and the last thing you want to do is throw any of it away! BTW, I did a workshop with a landscape tog back in 2015 who reckoned that even shooting RAW it was better to set your WB to one thing (almost anything) and leave it there, rather than use Auto, as you get more consistency in your meter readings and fewer blown highlights from strong colours. I don't know how much of an issue that is in practice, but I pass the tip on for what it's worth. Seems to me that it might help and can't do any harm, so I do it!
I would tend to disagree, as all WB variants/levels are basically right there within your RAW file and WB doesn't effect highlights afaik, but whatever worksAuto has always worked for me, that's all I know. I don't get deep into the technical or scientific side, I go with my eyes with photography, always.
Well it's definitely possible. The histogram Fuji shows you is based on the JPEG. And the relative luminance of different colours in the JPEG will vary with the WB you select (as you can see for yourself in LR). The only question for me is whether this is really a factor in practice. I suspect that in most shooting situations it isn't, but there might be some edge cases where it makes a real difference.
I just did a quick test this morning. Same scene, camera didn't move, exposure settings the same, just changed the WB. SHot with the XT1 and 18-55mm. Below is Auto top and Sunny bottom, both are RAW histograms and WB set to the same in post to demonstrate to those that say it doesn't matter what WB you shoot RAW in as you can just change it in post. The differences are very subtle, but there.
![Screen Shot 2016-11-26 at 08.20.19.png Screen Shot 2016-11-26 at 08.20.19.png](https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/data/attachments/90/90631-a351e51bfc74c6e90ad13825dc7ef96f.jpg)
![Screen Shot 2016-11-26 at 08.20.29.png Screen Shot 2016-11-26 at 08.20.29.png](https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/data/attachments/90/90632-dfd65e0fc4aff437a22570c2905977d9.jpg)
Whether these tiny differences are enough to worry folk that's up to the individual. I suspect that in different scenes the differences could well be more marked.
And just for completeness here are the original RAW histograms before equalising WB in post, obviously they look more different especially the higher red tones shifting further to the right.
![Screen Shot 2016-11-26 at 08.26.54.png Screen Shot 2016-11-26 at 08.26.54.png](https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/data/attachments/90/90633-ce0d6013ab6a5587dcb5b6da53e48a27.jpg)
![Screen Shot 2016-11-26 at 08.27.01.png Screen Shot 2016-11-26 at 08.27.01.png](https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/data/attachments/90/90634-310d18fab6dfedcf4b224041f89faf50.jpg)