Newbie question about raw format

Greetings,

I have my K-x since last Christmas and recently started shooting in raw to get more control over the end result, or so I thought. I just realized that menu options applied to the supposedly raw image just as if they were jpeg! For example, if I change the white balance settings I will get a very different "raw" image! Is there a problem with my camera?

Regards

Nothing wrong with your camera, and it's a good job you were shooting raw, because now you can change the white balance to whatever you like.

Give it a go, edit a raw image that has the wrong white balance and change it to what it should have been. You'll see what I mean.

The RAW image is just that, data taken straight from the sensor. The image file also stores whatever other settings you may have applied, like WB, and re-applies them after importing into your chosen RAW editor where you can change things if you got it wrong at capture time.

No, the raw carries the information on what the white balance was when shot & this will be displayed as a default when you open the raw file, you can then change it using the software without degrading the image.

It's always best to get the WB as near as you can when shooting though as it gives the metering the best chance at getting things right.

Thanks Manesty and RR for your replies. If I understand you correctly, when I modify the settings in Pentax Digital Camera Utility (PDCU) on a raw image, the modifications are made on the original "unmodified" image. If I do the same on a jpeg I'll be modifying an already "modified" image.

That's just about right except your changes do not actually change the original raw file. Instead, your changes are stored in a separate place and only take effect when viewing the image within whatever raw editor you use.

Then, if you export/save that image as a JPG, your changes are incorporated into it before the export in much the same way as shooting JPG in the first place.

The main difference is, when you shoot raw, you have much more latitude for changes afterwards.

That said, some here shoot JPG all the time with no issues, but they may have never got the WB wrong (or at least will admit to it).

Many thanks,

Now I understand a lot better.

I get the WB "wrong" all the time, but quite deliberately so, so maybe it isn't wrong at all.

The concept of WB is to produce a "correct" colour temperature, but I'm in the business of producing images, not scientific white balances. Therefore I'm looking to retain the quality of the ambient light colour, not filter it away with AWB. Sunsets are meant to be red, not grey.

So I use "daylight" predominantly (with exceptions) and revel in the most dramatic lighting I can find. Which is exactly what I did when I used colour slide film - how many of us measured the colour temperature then and applied colour correction filters?

IMHO we become obsessed with some aspects of digital imaging not because it's a good idea, but because we can. Of course, if that's part of an individual's style and fun then it's OK as well.

I agree John, I'll usually tweak the auto WB to memory of the scene or even whatever I deem looks "best"
If there are several different temp light sources or a very tinted cast, then I will set WB to daylight also as a much better starting point.

OK guys, "wrong" was perhaps the "wrong" word.

Would you feel better if I had written "set the WB to an inappropriate value for the prevailing lighting conditions"? EG: WB set to tungsten and shooting under daylight flourescent lighting.

I did mean "wrong" actually, not creative

FWIW I have my WB set to daylight too, unless I'm using flash. In which case the camera automatically changes it to flash.

I think that we've made a more useful set of comments there with a high degree of agreement. It's something worth saying and for beginners in particular to think about.

Much better to understand why we are doing something than to leave the camera always set on green!

Exactly my approach also Pete.

Interesting points of view. Gives something to think about. Thanks i-Berg, John and Peter.