Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 57

Thread: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

  1. #1
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Please, before you shoot, note the use of the word unscientific in the title

    I had a spare ten minutes. I banged the Sigma 35mm F1.4 ART lens (my fourth and best copy, known by me to be talented by difficult) on a D800E. I packed the RX-1, and I used an M240 with 35 Lux FLE which lens then got put onto an A7R with a Novoflex adaptor.

    I set each camera to ISO 200 (the lowest common denominator) and, having shot a couple of tests, settled on Manual mode with 1/800th (1/750th for the M240, which doesn't have a 1/800th setting) and aperture at F5.6

    I then imported each RAW file into LR RC5.3 and set WB to Daylight, profile to Adobe Standard and sharpening to 60/0.7/70/20. I then exported each file to Zenfolio at 92% quality 100% size JPEG.

    The results raise more questions than any answers provided but are at least of cursory interest. Please excuse the dark patch bottom right of the A7R file: I think the strap might have blown over it and it is too late to re-shoot.

    I have my own thoughts. What do others think, if interested?

    BTW please note that the files look differently bright, due to some differences in T stop versus F stop, degree of vignetting, actual versus nominal ISO and accuracy of shutter speeds but none has any blown areas.

    Tim Ashley Photography | A7R M240 D800 RX1 | _DSC2694
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #2
    Senior Member Ron Pfister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Interesting - thanks for posting these! I'm surprised to see such a strong color cast on the RX-1. Would have been interesting to see the Sigma on the A7R.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    860
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    76

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Tim, thank you for doing this quick test. Although unscientific as you say, it is still usefull for me since I pretty much never make scientific photos. All kidding aside, the subject matter you have chosen is perfect for me - wide angle, infinity focus, with lots of trees in the distance to reveal detail rendering. Also, I am mainly a landscape shooter.

    Unfortunately, I am viewing in an iPad for now and can't seem to figure out how to view the full size images on a web browser. Perhaps I need to see if there is a Zenfolio app that will let me see the full size images. Otherwise, I will have to wait until I get home this evening to view on my computer.

  4. #4
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,187
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Thanks for the pictures. What it tells me is that all four cameras can make very good pictures yet each have their own signature which I suspect can be worked to a desired "look." Looking at the Sony's I'd probably tone down the exposure slightly. The M240 looks pretty good out the camera. The D800 seems to pull the reds out a bit more. Again - all seem "fixable" in PP.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  5. #5
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    I agree - though the D800E file really shows how tricky the Sigma is and the files shot on the 35 Lux FLE compared to the other two lenses show the way the field curvature differs. But they pretty much any photographer would be very lucky to have any of these combinations, though the colour shifts might sometimes prove a bit more than some people would happily accept.

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Here I prefer the sky color of the D800.
    The A7 and Leica skye look too red to me, and the A7 image shows also too much vignetting IMO.
    The Leica image shows a good "depth" IMO, what ever that means

    I can not see much difference in detail between all 4 at this size

    From the color point here I prefer:
    #1 D800+Sigma
    #2 RX1
    #3 Leica M+35/1.4 FLE
    #4 A7r

    I first rated and then looked which camera is which

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    HI Tim
    Did you shoot AWB on the cameras? In my experience setting it to daylight in LR isn't quite the same thing. I've long since concluded that it's best to set WB in the camera to daylight (assuming it is daylight) which gives a consistency which shooting AWB just doesn't manage.

    Whatever, it's interesting, but personally I thought that the colour stinks on all four of them! Which is strange in that I think that both the A7r and the M have good colour.

    Just this guy you know

  8. #8
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Hi Jono, answering this here though we just discussed it on the phone, in case other people want the answer:

    My cameras are always set to either AWB or Daylight and honestly, given that I intended to set them all to Daylight in post so as to level the playing field (given that they were all shot in mid day light) and was shooting RAW, I didn't bother to check which was set to which.

    But you raised an interesting question on the phone: I have always assumed that shooting RAW means that it doesn't really matter what you set the camera WB to since you can always then get it 'right' in post (whether by eye or by shooting a WiBal frame) but you feel that the camera's WB setting fundamentally alters the way the file is written to card in a way that can't be undone in post. I have, honestly, never considered this but at some point soon I will test it. It strikes me that given that the M240 and RX-1 are performing some colour shading corrections in camera, that it might be true for them. I would be really surprised if it were true for the others, but I do want to find out!
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #9
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    The color temperature should not impact the RAW, but a shading profile or such might. And those should be separate. I know the shading comp on my RX-1 is a disaster and I have turned it off permanently. The natural color cast is so much easier to deal with and correct.

    I have played with AWB and specific WB on my Pentax 645D and RX-1. I have seem no difference in post with what I have set in camera. I use AWB when the color should be neutral and I use the AWB setting as a reference in post. I go over to a preset WB when I am shooting scenes that have an extreme color I want to see in my camera, such as a sunset.

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    Hi Jono, answering this here though we just discussed it on the phone, in case other people want the answer:

    My cameras are always set to either AWB or Daylight and honestly, given that I intended to set them all to Daylight in post so as to level the playing field (given that they were all shot in mid day light) and was shooting RAW, I didn't bother to check which was set to which.

    But you raised an interesting question on the phone: I have always assumed that shooting RAW means that it doesn't really matter what you set the camera WB to since you can always then get it 'right' in post (whether by eye or by shooting a WiBal frame) but you feel that the camera's WB setting fundamentally alters the way the file is written to card in a way that can't be undone in post. I have, honestly, never considered this but at some point soon I will test it. It strikes me that given that the M240 and RX-1 are performing some colour shading corrections in camera, that it might be true for them. I would be really surprised if it were true for the others, but I do want to find out!
    HI Tim
    Good to talk
    That isn't quite what I meant (that the setting fundamentally alters the file) although I guess it is the case when there are colour shading corrections).

    What I mean is that that the when you choose a particular WB setting in your post processing software, then what's done depends on what AWB (or whatever) did in the camera. i.e. not that there are necessarily irrevocable changes made to the raw file, but that there is an effect of one upon the other.

    This is entirely experiential - nothing to do with any scientific knowledge, and it may be that it varies from one processing program to another. It may also be that I'm completely wrong!

    I just prefer to stick to 'daylight' in daylight, and then I'm sure that I have a level playing field.

    Just this guy you know

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Whatever, it's interesting, but personally I thought that the colour stinks on all four of them! Which is strange in that I think that both the A7r and the M have good colour.
    That could just be the wonderful English climate…




  12. #12
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    HI Tim
    Good to talk
    That isn't quite what I meant (that the setting fundamentally alters the file) although I guess it is the case when there are colour shading corrections).

    What I mean is that that the when you choose a particular WB setting in your post processing software, then what's done depends on what AWB (or whatever) did in the camera. i.e. not that there are necessarily irrevocable changes made to the raw file, but that there is an effect of one upon the other.

    This is entirely experiential - nothing to do with any scientific knowledge, and it may be that it varies from one processing program to another. It may also be that I'm completely wrong!

    I just prefer to stick to 'daylight' in daylight, and then I'm sure that I have a level playing field.
    I notice that my Raw processing software and the camera manufacture's definition of a particular color temperature/condition like "daylight" and "tungsten" are not the same, either for the temp or tint sliders.

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    That could just be the wonderful English climate…



    HI Will

    I know it too well - but I don't think that's it in this case. . . .

    of course, it could be LR - which I also think stinks

    Just this guy you know
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #14
    Senior Member Ario Arioldi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Milano, Italy
    Posts
    784
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    To the best of my knowledge the in camera WB information are written on the raw file just as a metadata which can be used or not, depending on the settings, by the raw converter.

  15. #15
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    I notice that my Raw processing software and the camera manufacture's definition of a particular color temperature/condition like "daylight" and "tungsten" are not the same, either for the temp or tint sliders.
    Exactly - and I suspect they are applied independently - especially the tint - so that what you select in the camera has an effect on what you do in processing.

    Which means that if you choose AWB in camera, and the tint varies all over the place from shot to shot . . . then applying a preset in post will vary from shot to shot too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ario Arioldi View Post
    To the best of my knowledge the in camera WB information are written on the raw file just as a metadata which can be used or not, depending on the settings, by the raw converter.
    Yes, indeed, but my feeling is that it is used . . . . .and then added to if you choose a preset - again, I could be wrong.

    Just this guy you know

  16. #16
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,300
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    I get better results doing raw conversion in a camera manufacturers' native software, then export a tiff file and use CS6 and Nik with 16 Bit/Channel and ProPhoto RGB. Of course, if not already done so in camera, I also disable noise reduction and sharpening before the raw conversion.
    With best regards, K-H.

  17. #17
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Exactly - and I suspect they are applied independently - especially the tint - so that what you select in the camera has an effect on what you do in processing.

    Which means that if you choose AWB in camera, and the tint varies all over the place from shot to shot . . . then applying a preset in post will vary from shot to shot too.



    Yes, indeed, but my feeling is that it is used . . . . .and then added to if you choose a preset - again, I could be wrong.
    I have not done this in sometime so this could be aging brain cells, but I (think I) noticed if I set my camera to "daylight" and then brought the RAW file into ACR, the "as shot" and ACR "daylight" preset would give different cold temp and tint settings.
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #18
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Let's get testing, guys

  19. #19
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Gowin View Post
    Unfortunately, I am viewing in an iPad for now and can't seem to figure out how to view the full size images on a web browser. Perhaps I need to see if there is a Zenfolio app that will let me see the full size images. Otherwise, I will have to wait until I get home this evening to view on my computer.
    Apologies for being dense, but I also can't seem to figure out how to access the full-sized images, even from a web browser. Can someone enlighten me?

  20. #20
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    mouse over the medium sized ones and a menu appears at top left of the image, one of the options is Download Original...

  21. #21
    Member fmueller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    I am a bit taken aback by how poorly the Sigma lens is suited for a landscape photo. I presume that I am seeing a field curvature simply not present in the other two lenses. The other three combination are vastly preferable from a focus point of view.

    That is my non expert opinion from a pixel peeping session with the downloaded jpegs...

  22. #22
    Senior Member CharlesK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    730
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Very interesting test! IMO, I like the RX1 the best closely followed by the M240 and A7r with the 35 Lux FLE. There is more detail with the A7r, but the 35 Lux FLE is very useable. Maybe the difference would be less if the 35 Cron Aph was used I am surprised by the results with the D800/Sigma.
    Charles Kalnins
    Tallai, Queensland Australia.

    http://kalnins.zenfolio.com

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Thanks, Tim. Ideal shots for evaluation. Now I am really confused.

    I want something to take pictures that approach MF quality, but in a smaller image. For the past year I have been carrying an APSC camera in my briefcase - just for quickies. I have found the small format, even with good lenses, ... difficult and disappointing. My fault, I'm sure.

    Aha, methinks! Get a full frame A7r, put a nice 50 on it and I may actually like a few of the briefcase shots.

    The A7r is coming this week, and I will probably just stick the Sony/Zeiss 55mm on it. It will be portable and that is its primary application. However, looking at your shots and the others springing up on the web, I am probably not going to be much happier with the PQ than I was before. Sigh.

    Peter

  24. #24
    Senior Member Taylor Sherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Just looking at the web-sized shots, I actually liked the A7 shot the best, thinking it was probably the RX-1! But, it's obviously super subjective. The D800 is just washed out, and the M shot is too dark.

    One thing, of course, is clear: the M has more birds!

  25. #25
    Senior Member Taylor Sherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Looking at the details, all I can see is the horrible LR RAW processing / sharpening on the A7 shot, unfortunately.

  26. #26
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    There really should be no difference in a small change of color temp to a file if you go in post with a WB card to correct. Noticed I said small, big changes like shooting tungsten in daylight or vise versa can have a big impact trying to correct in post to a WB card. Reason is some separate color data in the file is just to far a stretch in lost color to correct. Shooting tungsten for instance is heavily weighed on the red channel which can have a impact on your blue channel for instance. Rule of thumb never use AWB as the camera will always be influenced by the scene color itself. In daylight shoot to a daylight preset than do your adjustments in post. Back to the small change comment you simply do not want big swings in color data. Also in a test like this its best to include a WB card in the shot as to get the color correct in post for evaluation. ACR changing the color profile in post can have a big effect. I'm not a fan of ACR or LR never was because you can't use a ICC profile. When I got the D800 out of the gate I had a really hard time getting color correct in these programs and Nikons own software. Finally when C1 supported it than life got a lot better as C1 uses ICC profiles. This thing I won't buy it until C1 supports it. That's me though

    BTW Tim did say unscientific and it truly is without a WB card in the scene you have no idea what correct really is when it comes to these kinds of evaluations. Color will be all over the place with raw converters. You can take that Nikon file in four converters and have 4 radical changes in each without a standard to go by, than you comparing raw converters itself.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  27. #27
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Thanks Tim, I'm evaluating a Demo M240 right now and these are helpful (even though I do not shoot many landscapes).

    It confirms what I found in a controlled "quasi-scientific" sort of test using all constant elements. The M240 exhibits some IR contamination (somewhere between the M8 and M9 as far as I can determine so far) ... see attached test with M240 in Tungsten light with, and without, an IR filter on the lens). In discussions on the LUF I have come to understand why a weaker IR filter was used on the M240. However, it is there.

    It is also apparent in your real world images in the sky, (see crops from your samples of the M240 sky, which reveals the magenta cast when placed next to the A7R sky, which is relatively neutral. This may also account for the slightly more vibrant fall colors (only confirmed IF the shot was done with and without an IR filter) ... maybe okay for landscapes, perhaps not so good for other applications.

    I agree with Taylor that the A7R has been over sharpened ... someone suggested rather than LR RC5.3, it may be better to use the latest DNG converter and then process A7R RAW files in LR4.4. Since my computer is older, I can't install LR5, so I used the DNG converter for the A7R files I shot, and can say I didn't witness such brutal sharpening artifacts. Not sure that proves anything ... it would require A RAW file be processed both ways to really tell.

    - Marc
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  28. #28
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor Sherman View Post
    Just looking at the web-sized shots, I actually liked the A7 shot the best, thinking it was probably the RX-1! But, it's obviously super subjective. The D800 is just washed out, and the M shot is too dark.

    One thing, of course, is clear: the M has more birds!
    D800 files always look washed out unless you give them some curves... They are really raw raw. Sharpening had to be the same to be fair to all but the rc5.3 doesn't 'do' 7r files well, whatever the sharpening!

  29. #29
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Thanks Tim, I'm evaluating a Demo M240 right now and these are helpful (even though I do not shoot many landscapes).

    It confirms what I found in a controlled "quasi-scientific" sort of test using all constant elements. The M240 exhibits some IR contamination (somewhere between the M8 and M9 as far as I can determine so far) ... see attached test with M240 in Tungsten light with, and without, an IR filter on the lens). In discussions on the LUF I have come to understand why a weaker IR filter was used on the M240. However, it is there.

    It is also apparent in your real world images in the sky, (see crops from your samples of the M240 sky, which reveals the magenta cast when placed next to the A7R sky, which is relatively neutral. This may also account for the slightly more vibrant fall colors (only confirmed IF the shot was done with and without an IR filter) ... maybe okay for landscapes, perhaps not so good for other applications.

    I agree with Taylor that the A7R has been over sharpened ... someone suggested rather than LR RC5.3, it may be better to use the latest DNG converter and then process A7R RAW files in LR4.4. Since my computer is older, I can't install LR5, so I used the DNG converter for the A7R files I shot, and can say I didn't witness such brutal sharpening artifacts. Not sure that proves anything ... it would require A RAW file be processed both ways to really tell.

    - Marc
    Marc, I honestly think that if you want to use mainly M glass, the M240 is the better choice though I noticed,when I reviewed it, the same IR contamination. Trouble is, with wider apertures, the 35fle and other Leica wides I have tried on the A7r, the colour shading is the worse of the two evils...

  30. #30
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by cunim View Post
    Thanks, Tim. Ideal shots for evaluation. Now I am really confused.

    I want something to take pictures that approach MF quality, but in a smaller image. For the past year I have been carrying an APSC camera in my briefcase - just for quickies. I have found the small format, even with good lenses, ... difficult and disappointing. My fault, I'm sure.

    Aha, methinks! Get a full frame A7r, put a nice 50 on it and I may actually like a few of the briefcase shots.

    The A7r is coming this week, and I will probably just stick the Sony/Zeiss 55mm on it. It will be portable and that is its primary application. However, looking at your shots and the others springing up on the web, I am probably not going to be much happier with the PQ than I was before. Sigh.

    Peter
    Peter, don't judge it until you see it shot with a native FE lens and a better raw developer... If you want close to MF quality in a briefcase, the a7r and the Rx1 are the only games in town IMHO.

  31. #31
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Right. After yesterday's discussion about WB, I decided to run a quick test.

    My historical feeling and therefore practice has been that for cameras with colour shading corrections turned off, it does not matter what WB you shoot if you are shooting RAW because the camera captures all the spectra available to it and the balancing of those spectra is a decision as to how that captured data is later marshalled and presented. In other words, you could leave your camera on Fluorescent for a day at the beach as long as you corrected the WB in your raw developer.

    Others felt that that the setting of WB at capture stage, even for a RAW file, would affect what was captured such that later attempts at balance would be stymied. This had never occurred to me so I thought I would test it.

    The linked shots are on an a7R with 35 Lux FLE at F8. I shot them with Fluorescent (setting '0'), Incandescent, Cloudy, Shade and Daylight setting on camera, then shot a reference frame with a WB card and then in LR RC5.3 I applied to BW from that frame to all the RAW files. here they come, first the 'as shots' in the order above, and then all files corrected to custom WB as captured. Of course, if this proves anything it relates only to one camera, does not take account of what might happen if shading corrections are turned on with a relevant lens, and doesn't test for whether metering and (therefore exposure) might differ with different on-camera WB settings. It also doesn't test for what might happen if I did the same thing with a strongly biased light source such as a lightbulb. All are done with adobe RGB throughout the process.









    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  32. #32
    New Member Floyd Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Barrow Alaska
    Posts
    11
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    There really should be no difference in a small change of color temp to a file if you go in post with a WB card to correct. Noticed I said small, big changes like shooting tungsten in daylight or vise versa can have a big impact trying to correct in post to a WB card.
    When shooting in RAW it makes absolutely no difference at all. None. Zilch. Zip.

    The raw sensor data is exactly the same regardless of how the White Balance is set. And when processed the parameters for converter configuration can be set to exactly the same as would have been set in camera for each or any of the different possible camera White Balance settings.

    As for the images, I don't see any differences that cannot be equalized with proper configuration of the RAW converter. There is no reason to assume that the camera defaults and the converter defaults are either optimal or that they should be the same. Each camera has a different built in tone curve, and each converter has different curves for each camera. The defaults are merely what either engineering or marketing decided would suit their market best. That is not necessariy a match for the audience here! And note too that major camera manufacturers use different tone curves for different markets, and hence the same model sold in Germany will produced a different default image than one sold in Japan.

    The whole point of a test should be to see what the "best" is that can be done with each camera/converter, not a comparison of the defaults. For example, using the same amount of sharpening on a D800 with 36MP as is used on a camera with say 14MP is a gross error. Incidentally, using the same sharpening on images from a D800E and a D800 would also be invalid for comparative purposes.

  33. #33
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Now the same images re-WB in Post to the setting determined by a WB reference shot:











    Many eyes are better than one. What do people think? Again, a link to larger processed files is here.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  34. #34
    Senior Member Ron Pfister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Comparing the low-res images on my un-calibrated, low-gamut 11" MBA display, I'm tempted to say they all look strikingly similar.

  35. #35
    New Member Floyd Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Barrow Alaska
    Posts
    11
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    My historical feeling and therefore practice has been that for cameras with colour shading corrections turned off, it does not matter what WB you shoot if you are shooting RAW because the camera captures all the spectra available to it and the balancing of those spectra is a decision as to how that captured data is later marshalled and presented. In other words, you could leave your camera on Fluorescent for a day at the beach as long as you corrected the WB in your raw developer.

    Others felt that that the setting of WB at capture stage, even for a RAW file, would affect what was captured such that later attempts at balance would be stymied. This had never occurred to me so I thought I would test it.
    I can provide a proof positive that the RAW file is not affected by the WB setting on the camera at the time the image is shot.

    Dave Coffin is the author of DCRAW, a basic raw converter which he updates regularly to include virtually every new model as it is produced. DCRAW is Open Source Software, and is the basis for many other raw converters. It happens that I use UFRAW, written by Udi Fuchs, which is based on DCRAW. The source code for both programs is freely available.

    The significance is that the WB adjustments in the UFRAW menu specifically agree with the WB adjustments available in the camera. The author specifically will list only the exact same configurations as the camera has! And the exact same RGB channel multipliers are used too. That is, if you have a Nikon D800 and set the in camera White Balance to "Daylight" the channel multipliers used to generate a JPEG for previewing will be recorded in the Exif metadata. If the NEF file is then processed by UFRAW with the WB set to "Daylight" it will use exactly the same channel multipliers as the camera does. (I've personally recorded and forwarded the appropriate data on multipliers to the author of UFRAW for several Nikon models.) It is also very easy to generate a "preset" with the camera and then add the same values to UFRAW and recompile it to have that preset on the menu.

    It is very clear, from the perspective of writing software for RAW conversions, that the on camera WB setting affects only the JPEG engine and has exactly zero effect on the RAW data that is recorded.

  36. #36
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Hi Tim
    They seem to me to be the same - but actually that isn't quite what I meant. I would expect them to be the same under those circumstances - because you're applying a white balance setting you've established at the scene.

    My point is that if you shoot away with AWB . . . and then apply the LR daylight setting in post processing - not the one you've established to be 'correct' for the scene.

    What happens if you just apply the LR standard 'daylight' setting to all of those different shots? - or indeed any of the other LR standards - do they still all come out the same?

    But even if they do, that STILL isn't my point - which is that if you have a level playing field when you shoot (by picking a standard WB) then it's much easier to deal with the colour (if needed) in post processing than it is if the WB is all over the place because you've set AWB when shooting.


    all the best
    Jono

    Just this guy you know
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  37. #37
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    They all look the same to me too. I think we were talking at cross purposes, though I am still therefore slightly unsure as to what Guy means above. I have now converted them all the LR Daylight preset and uploaded them to the same gallery - let me know if they seem the same to you, they do to me.

    So at least in something like normal daylight and on this camera, it is as I suspected, that the WB you shoot them with makes no difference though it may give you a quicker start in post if you get it close to right at capture, all the data you need is in the file whatever WB setting you shoot with.
    One thing though: the file that I shot with a Daylight preset, when developed with As Shot, looks a little different to how it looks if I apply LR's Daylight profile. This seems to be a difference of opinion as to what is the 'right' daylight and given that it is a matter of opinion, because daylight is a moveable feast, may be neither right nor wrong depending on circumstance but in this case, the LR idea of Daylight is warmer than the in-camera idea and is also warmer than the calibrated shot. In this case it would be easy to know what the camera's default daylight setting is and merely apply it to all files as relevant...

    I am going to shoot a lightbulb scene with all WB settings and then correct them all in post to both incandescent and to a Wibal calibration shot and see what happens. This is interesting!

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi Tim
    They seem to me to be the same - but actually that isn't quite what I meant. I would expect them to be the same under those circumstances - because you're applying a white balance setting you've established at the scene.

    My point is that if you shoot away with AWB . . . and then apply the LR daylight setting in post processing - not the one you've established to be 'correct' for the scene.

    What happens if you just apply the LR standard 'daylight' setting to all of those different shots? - or indeed any of the other LR standards - do they still all come out the same?

    But even if they do, that STILL isn't my point - which is that if you have a level playing field when you shoot (by picking a standard WB) then it's much easier to deal with the colour (if needed) in post processing than it is if the WB is all over the place because you've set AWB when shooting.


    all the best
    Jono
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  38. #38
    New Member Floyd Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Barrow Alaska
    Posts
    11
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    But even if they do, that STILL isn't my point - which is that if you have a level playing field when you shoot (by picking a standard WB) then it's much easier to deal with the colour (if needed) in post processing than it is if the WB is all over the place because you've set AWB when shooting.
    The raw sensor data that is recorded in a RAW file format is unaffected by the camera's WB setting. As long as you are post prossessing the RAW file (as opposed to a camera generated JPEG or TIFF file) you are starting with a "level playing field".

  39. #39
    Member pozzello's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    68
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    Now the same images re-WB in Post to the setting determined by a WB reference shot:











    Many eyes are better than one. What do people think? Again, a link to larger processed files is here.
    I really like that building on the right, where were those taken ?

  40. #40
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Oh tsk, this isn't about images!

    Battersea Power station, London...

  41. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    860
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    76

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Tim, I have always had the same assumption as you in that the camera white balance setting didn't matter if shooting raw and white balance is corrected in the raw conversion software. Your preliminary test seem to bear this out. My own experience has been similar as I have never had any problem correcting white balance to my satisfaction in post (except when using a Lee Big Stopper filter). I am far from an expert in these matters so what is acceptable to me may not be acceptable for someone else.

    I admit that Jono's comment, or rather my understanding of his comment, about the camera WB setting causing a bias for the raw editing software sure got me thinking about the possibility he is right. I appreciate your efforts in testing this out. I don't have an opportunity to do the testing myself right now.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  42. #42
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    And just to round out my tour d'horizon of the fascinating subject of White Balance when shooting RAW, I shot a series under very poor tungsten light, with the camera set to each of the main in-camera WB options. I then set them all in LR 5.3rc to the same value, which was determining by clicking the dropper on the relevant WB calibration target in the first image and pasting it to all the shots… and the exposure as calculated by the camera remained identical for each frame. So in future, I will merrily shoot with whatever WB happens to be set if I'm in too much of a hurry, in the reasonable assurance that it makes no eventual difference - though just to be sure I will see what happens with shading correction turned on when I get a native FE lens…

    In the same order as above:









    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  43. #43
    Member pozzello's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    68
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    Oh tsk, this isn't about images!

    Battersea Power station, London...
    Power stations and incinerators are all I can think of these days - thanks for the tip

  44. #44
    Senior Member Taylor Sherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    OK, so there are two questions here it sounds like.

    1. Does the RAW image change depending on what white balance you select in-camera?
    2. Does the application of a particular WB in post, to a RAW image, change depending on what white-balance you select in camera

    For 1: generally I've always assumed the answer is "no", the RAW does not change. However, what I don't know is how the camera meters - does it meter purely based on the raw data, or does it apply the WB, and meter from that? If it does the latter, you will get different exposures. And, different exposures will slightly affect the eventual color balance (though I don't know in what, if any consistent, direction).

    For 2: I don't believe so. LR's application of "Daylight" to the RAW file is a fixed, mathematical transformation. IF the RAW pixel data is actually the same, then the output is the same no matter the camera's WB setting that is embedded in the RAW.

    For practical purposes, I'm operating on the assumption that medium-sized WB issues (eg using Cloudy instead of Daylight, or using AWB) will have no visible effect on the end result I am capable of getting by applying the "proper" WB to the RAW.

    Shooting with Tungsten in daylight, or using a crazy custom WB (both of which I used to do a lot of, actually, but haven't for a while) could possibly cause under- or over-exposures that you wouldn't have gotten before (but again, I'm not sure of that, it's just to be on the safe side).

  45. #45
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Hi Taylor,

    The two sets of tests I did both involved frames that were exposed as being at the far end of the 'spectrum of normal possibility' from the actual light in the scene and yet all the balanced files in both sets metered and converted exactly the same as far as I can see - so I think one will likely be safe even with big disparities between the WB as set on the camera and the actual temperature of the light. At least on this camera… but I am curious to bottom out if there are cameras or circumstances where that comforting rule of thumb will lead one into trouble...

  46. #46
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by pozzello View Post
    Power stations and incinerators are all I can think of these days - thanks for the tip
    The one in the photo has appeared on a Pink Floyd album cover and is a great iconic London building but it you like it, hop a plane quickly: they are finally. after many years of argument, about to re-develop it, albeit within the existing shell...

  47. #47
    New Member Floyd Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Barrow Alaska
    Posts
    11
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor Sherman View Post
    For 1: generally I've always assumed the answer is "no", the RAW does not change. However, what I don't know is how the camera meters - does it meter purely based on the raw data, or does it apply the WB, and meter from that?
    I can't speak to all cameras, but specifically the Nikon D800 (as do all Nikon DSLR's) uses and entirely different sensor for metering, and it is never adjusted for White Balance or any of the other configuration options for producing a JPEG image.

    I think it is safe to assume that is true for other DSLR cameras by other manufacturers.

  48. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    413
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Tim, first off, thanks for sharing your tests.

    I think the ‘confusion’ about the WB stuff comes from this:
    If you use AWB, even on the same location in the same light, your colours are going to differ from shot to shot because the camera calculates the AWB from what it ‘sees’ in each specific shot.
    Now if you start post-processing these shots and apply a new AWB in LR on the each shot in my experience one does not get a consistent WB-look for that shoot.

    I’m not completely sure, but I think that Jono feels that if you apply a custom WB in LR to the first shot you took with AWB on a specific location under more or less the same light and than ‘sync’ (apply) this custom WB to all other shots, your WB is going to vary from shot to shot, as if LR only applies the correction value, which was ‘right’ for the first shot you corrected, but should be a different value for all the other shots, because they have different AWB measurings to begin with.

    On a side note, I know you mentioned the landscape shots comparing the Sony’s, Leica and Nikon, are not scientific and all, but it looks to me the D800 is focussed on the foreground. So that would explain the shockingly big difference in resolution between the 7R and the D800.

  49. #49
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Thanks Peter!

    The D800E file was taken with magnified LV focus: if I were being scientific I would have bracketed (as I would have done were it a shot that mattered!) but in the unscientific spirit I thought I'd do a 'best efforts' with the systems as they stand - including the terrible magnified LV of the D800, which is often still preferable to the dodgy AF of that camera… but I wouldn't assume that it is focussed on the foreground because the distance mark was close to infinity, though I guess I could have jogged it with my hand as I held it to shoot. Maybe I'll try that one again - but the field of focus in that frame is odd: the extreme foreground is in focus, then some of the mid ground is OOF and then the distance looks like it is more or less in focus but without great resolution. It is s tricky lens to be sure so I will get it on a tripod and shoot it with focus done a variety of ways and report back… and in any event its soggy edges are often a problem, due to field curvature.


    Per the White Balance: in the bridge series above, I took all the frames as shot at their widely differing in-camera WB settings, clicked the BW eyedropper on the reference patch of the White Balance frame and then copied that via Sync to all the others, and indeed each frame showed the same Temp and Tint and looked the same.

    So it seems to me that LR applies an absolute value in Sync, not a relative shift.

    I don't use AWB in LR often enough to have a view but I did just try it on those files and it did give each one, however shot, exactly the same Temp and Tint. However I have yet to shoot a series using AWB and then ask LR to use its own AWB on each of the series to see what happens!

  50. #50
    Senior Member Taylor Sherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by peterv View Post
    Tim, first off, thanks for sharing your tests.

    I think the ‘confusion’ about the WB stuff comes from this:
    If you use AWB, even on the same location in the same light, your colours are going to differ from shot to shot because the camera calculates the AWB from what it ‘sees’ in each specific shot.
    Now if you start post-processing these shots and apply a new AWB in LR on the each shot in my experience one does not get a consistent WB-look for that shoot.

    I’m not completely sure, but I think that Jono feels that if you apply a custom WB in LR to the first shot you took with AWB on a specific location under more or less the same light and than ‘sync’ (apply) this custom WB to all other shots, your WB is going to vary from shot to shot, as if LR only applies the correction value, which was ‘right’ for the first shot you corrected, but should be a different value for all the other shots, because they have different AWB measurings to begin with.
    I'm pretty sure that's not the case. If all the shots really do require basically the same WB (EG, it is a proper application to create one WB in LR on the first shot then apply it to all of them), then it doesn't matter what the camera-applied WB was. At all. The WB is just applying to the RAW images, and ignoring the camera's WB setting that's embedded in there.

    In other words, LR is not applying a "correction" to the in-camera WB. It is applying the full WB algorithm to the original sensor detections.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •