mivadep wrote:
I don't think I've seen a note of this yet, but the histogram is based on the JPEG rather than the raw AFAIK, so you might expose differently if you're using that depending on the film simulation you have selected.
That’s somewhat true, and photographers have dealt with that issue on other brand platforms, too. The issue, IIRC, has been trying to choose the sim (or profile on other cameras) that gives you the most accurate reflection of the raw file on the LCD and in the viewfinder.
But still, the RAF file holds the underlying sensor data (which I always have to qualify by recognizing that modern digital cameras may alter that in some ways) regardless of which sims you select.
RoamingSnark wrote:
Mike's got some competition here!
You often have useful and accurate photographic facts and perspectives to offer. But you habitually poison the well by being unable to resist launching passive-aggressive insults.
Imagine how much more respect your knowledge would get if you could turn off the snark and share your knowledge and perspectives. Those who respect you for that still will do so, and those who hide most of your posts because they are tired of the snark would listen to you as well. I often agree with some of your fact-based points, but I (like quite a few others) are totally put off by the distraction from the unnecessary insults and snark.
mivadep wrote:
I don't think I've seen a note of this yet, but the histogram is based on the JPEG rather than the raw AFAIK, so you might expose differently if you're using that depending on the film simulation you have selected.
Yes. The Fuji X histogram is based on whatever jpeg parameters you have your camera set to. So if you stretch or compress shadow or highlight tones these will affect the histo; as will changing film style emulations and/or increasing or lowering saturation and/or adjusting WB.
As a real life example, I shoot raw only and generally leave my camera set to STD film emulation and all other jpeg parameters zeroed out. When I import the raw I almost always have to adjust both ends of the levels sliders to normalize each image; and in fact I have my raw processor set to perform this task automatically on import (easy to undo if needed since the adjustment shows independently for each image in the levels panel). All this implies is that the raw has much broader DR than any of the in-cam jpegs.
A caveat to this is if I know I want to "see" in B&W, I use an Acros+Y film emulation, which has about the same total DR range as the STD emulation, so there is virtually no impact on my exposure or histo usage.
gyoung143 wrote:
Such minor differences as there are have been explained as from the SHOOTING, not the in camera processing. Neither is Sepia! Being pedantic about semantics just makes you look silly.
Gerry
It's asinine to shoot in different light to prove the files aren't affected. Honestly any differences are likely to be small, or there'd be no debate.
If he seriously did that, thats not much smarter than flat out posting evidence for my assertions by posting 2 photos having different contrast. Like he did. Now if he's trying to say its the lighting, I have my doubts
I am unsure what the conversation has been thus far (too convoluted to bother following), but:
None of the Image Quality menu settings—except for RAW Recording and DR**—affect the data in the RAF file. The EXIF metadata will store your chosen settings so that your computer's RAW processing software can apply some of those settings (only WB and film simulation as far as I know) when you edit the file. But they can always be undone to reveal the original data.
**The DR setting bumps the ISO in the shadows while slightly under-exposing to preserve highlights before the raw file is captured.
AmbientMike wrote:
It's asinine to shoot in different light to prove the files aren't affected. Honestly any differences are likely to be small, or there'd be no debate.
If he seriously did that, thats not much smarter than flat out posting evidence for my assertions by posting 2 photos having different contrast. Like he did. Now if he's trying to say its the lighting, I have my doubts
Sigh, it is asinine to suggest that what you perceive as a slight difference in what you call 'contrast' invalidates a comparison comparing settings for normal colour and sepia.
mdude85 wrote:
I am unsure what the conversation has been thus far (too convoluted to bother following), but:
None of the Image Quality menu settings—except for RAW Recording and DR**—affect the data in the RAF file. The EXIF metadata will store your chosen settings so that your computer's RAW processing software can apply some of those settings (only WB and film simulation as far as I know) when you edit the file. But they can always be undone to reveal the original data.
**The DR setting bumps the ISO in the shadows while slightly under-exposing to preserve highlights before the raw file is captured.
There are some settings that will affect what you see when you first open a file in a raw converter, at least in Adobe software. There’s a x/y color balance adjustment window on my XT5 that I’ve accidentally misadjusted a couple of times. I discovered this not because the raw data was changed, but because the offsets from the camera were automatically applied in ACR when I opened the files.
Short story: That did not change the raw file image data.
If anyone wants to see example images I can provide them.
gdanmitchell wrote:
There are some settings that will affect what you see when you first open a file in a raw converter, at least in Adobe software. There’s a x/y color balance adjustment window on my XT5 that I’ve accidentally misadjusted a couple of times. I discovered this not because the raw data was changed, but because the offsets from the camera were automatically applied in ACR when I opened the files.
Short story: That did not change the raw file image data.
If anyone wants to see example images I can provide them.
Yes. If by "x/y color balance adjustment window" you mean the camera’s WB shift feature, then ACR has been reported to change the WB and tint settings on import. I assume this happens because it reads the shift values in the EXIF metadata and tries to mimic the WB shift effect.
In other words, as I wrote, it does not change the image data in the raw file. It only allows the conversion software to apply a comparable setting to the underlying file.
If I have time later I’ll run a little experiment to illustrate this.
gyoung143 wrote:
Sigh, it is asinine to suggest that what you perceive as a slight difference in what you call 'contrast' invalidates a comparison comparing settings for normal colour and sepia.
It's really not.
But if you want to take up for some yahoo testing in different lighting, then trying to come back around and say this is evidence the raw isnt affected, posting clearly different photos, well, thats asinine.
A lot of purity issues on here, and people get funny ideas about raw files. But if you think the camera settings and film sims dont change a single byte in the raw, well, yeah, they probably do.
