Still puzzled about some basics

[sircarlphil]

I'm actually not a beginner, but two things about digital photography have always puzzled me. I assumed I'd work them out eventually. Then decided to see if this forum could help.

1. What camera functions affect RAW files?

I've always assumed it is ONLY the basic exposure parameters (aperture, shutter speed, ISO). But I'm not sure that's right.

For example, the user manual for my new Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV says this: "RAW images consist of unprocessed image data to which settings such as exposure
compensation and white balance have yet to be applied." So I decided to test this by setting the camera to RAW plus JPEG and then (a) shooting the same scene with normal, +1, and -1 exposures, and then (b) going back to the normal exposure and making a few shots by changing the WB manually (and only that) to very different settings.

If the user manual is correct, the JPEGs should all look different, but the RAW files should look identical. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. When I downloaded them onto my RAW image editor, all the RAW files look different too. Unless I'm doing this wrong, it looks like exposure compensation and WB adjustments do affect RAW files. Is this correct? Does anything else?

2. Is the histogram really useful when shooting RAW?

I've read many times about the value of using the camera's built-in histogram to achieve correct exposure. But then I also read somewhere that, if you're shooting RAW plus JPEG, the histogram only reads the JPEG image, not the corresponding RAW image. If that's the case, why should the histogram matter to someone shooting RAW images? In fact, wouldn't it give an inaccurate idea of how well exposed the RAW image actually is?

Would be grateful for any help forum members can give me with these issues.

 

[Chris R-UK]

I'm actually not a beginner, but two things about digital photography have always puzzled me. I assumed I'd work them out eventually. Then decided to see if this forum could help.

1. What camera functions affect RAW files?

I've always assumed it is ONLY the basic exposure parameters (aperture, shutter speed, ISO). But I'm not sure that's right.

For example, the user manual for my new Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV says this: "RAW images consist of unprocessed image data to which settings such as exposure
compensation and white balance have yet to be applied."

I have no idea what the manual is trying to say. AFAIK, changing the exposure compensation certainly changes the raw files. On the other hand, it is correct in saying that the white balance has not yet been applied to the raw file.

So I decided to test this by setting the camera to RAW plus JPEG and then (a) shooting the same scene with normal, +1, and -1 exposures, and then (b) going back to the normal exposure and making a few shots by changing the WB manually (and only that) to very different settings.

If the user manual is correct, the JPEGs should all look different, but the RAW files should look identical. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. When I downloaded them onto my RAW image editor, all the RAW files look different too. Unless I'm doing this wrong, it looks like exposure compensation and WB adjustments do affect RAW files. Is this correct? Does anything else?

2. Is the histogram really useful when shooting RAW?

I've read many times about the value of using the camera's built-in histogram to achieve correct exposure. But then I also read somewhere that, if you're shooting RAW plus JPEG, the histogram only reads the JPEG image, not the corresponding RAW image. If that's the case, why should the histogram matter to someone shooting RAW images? In fact, wouldn't it give an inaccurate idea of how well exposed the RAW image actually is?

The histogram does not give an accurate representation of the raw file, particularly the extent to which blown highlights can be recovered during raw processing. However, personally I find it accurate enough for my purposes. If it shows blown highlights, I will reduce the exposure until they are almost, but not quite, eliminated. That is good enough for me, but probably not for all photographers.

Would be grateful for any help forum members can give me with these issues.

 

[Mark9473]

1. What camera functions affect RAW files?

I've always assumed it is ONLY the basic exposure parameters (aperture, shutter speed, ISO).

I decided to test this by setting the camera to RAW plus JPEG and then (a) shooting the same scene with normal, +1, and -1 exposures

If the user manual is correct, the JPEGs should all look different, but the RAW files should look identical. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. When I downloaded them onto my RAW image editor, all the RAW files look different too.

Make sure your raw editor isn't displaying the embedded JPEG included in the raw.

 

[Dem Bell]

I'm actually not a beginner, but two things about digital photography have always puzzled me. I assumed I'd work them out eventually. Then decided to see if this forum could help.

1. What camera functions affect RAW files?

I've always assumed it is ONLY the basic exposure parameters (aperture, shutter speed, ISO). But I'm not sure that's right.

For example, the user manual for my new Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV says this: "RAW images consist of unprocessed image data to which settings such as exposure
compensation and white balance have yet to be applied."

A raw file essentually contains counts of how many photons made it through the colour filter array and hit each red, blue or green pixel. This information from neighbouring pixels is used in combination with WB and other JPEG settings to assign an RGB colour to each pixel in the image - the process called demosaicing. WB is applied to a raw file after the shutter has closed and can be changed in any way you like.

The main purpose of exposure compensation though is to change the amount of light that hits the sensor. So it is not a setting that can be reapplied after the shutter has closed. Too late for that.

So I decided to test this by setting the camera to RAW plus JPEG and then (a) shooting the same scene with normal, +1, and -1 exposures, and then (b) going back to the normal exposure and making a few shots by changing the WB manually (and only that) to very different settings.

If the user manual is correct, the JPEGs should all look different, but the RAW files should look identical. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. When I downloaded them onto my RAW image editor, all the RAW files look different too.

You cannot "see" a raw file. You are probably looking at an image produced by a raw processing software that is using "as shot" JPEG options to render an image from a raw file as a default. Change the processing protocol and the output image will change.

Unless I'm doing this wrong, it looks like exposure compensation and WB adjustments do affect RAW files. Is this correct? Does anything else?

2. Is the histogram really useful when shooting RAW?

I've read many times about the value of using the camera's built-in histogram to achieve correct exposure. But then I also read somewhere that, if you're shooting RAW plus JPEG, the histogram only reads the JPEG image, not the corresponding RAW image. If that's the case, why should the histogram matter to someone shooting RAW images? In fact, wouldn't it give an inaccurate idea of how well exposed the RAW image actually is?

You are spot on here. The histogram, metering modes, blinkies are all for the JPEG image. Depending on a particular camera model, there is 0.5-1.5 stops of highlight recovery headroom that when you get out of the raw file when the JPEG appears to be blown.

The good news is that if the highlights in your JPEG are not blown, they will definitely be fine in raw.

Would be grateful for any help forum members can give me with these issues.

 

[bjn70]

Make sure your raw editor isn't displaying the embedded JPEG included in the raw.

And the OP should be sure that his raw editor is not applying the in-camera WB settings as a starting point in the raw conversion. I believe Nikon software for instance will do that.

 

[bclaff]

....

1. What camera functions affect RAW files?

I've always assumed it is ONLY the basic exposure parameters (aperture, shutter speed, ISO). But I'm not sure that's right.

For some cameras certain setting such as noise reduction are baked into the raw files.

For example, the user manual for my new Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV says this: "RAW images consist of unprocessed image data to which settings such as exposure
compensation and white balance have yet to be applied." So I decided to test this by setting the camera to RAW plus JPEG and then (a) shooting the same scene with normal, +1, and -1 exposures, and then (b) going back to the normal exposure and making a few shots by changing the WB manually (and only that) to very different settings.

If the user manual is correct, the JPEGs should all look different, but the RAW files should look identical. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. When I downloaded them onto my RAW image editor, all the RAW files look different too. Unless I'm doing this wrong, it looks like exposure compensation and WB adjustments do affect RAW files. Is this correct? Does anything else?

...

It's unclear what you really tested without seeing the raw files but remember that your "raw image editor" demosaics and applies various setting to the raw data.
Better to examine the "identical" raw files with something like RawDigger.

 

[alcelc]

I'm actually not a beginner, but two things about digital photography have always puzzled me. I assumed I'd work them out eventually. Then decided to see if this forum could help.

1. What camera functions affect RAW files?

I've always assumed it is ONLY the basic exposure parameters (aperture, shutter speed, ISO). But I'm not sure that's right.

For example, the user manual for my new Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV says this: "RAW images consist of unprocessed image data to which settings such as exposure
compensation and white balance have yet to be applied."

I have no idea what the manual is trying to say. AFAIK, changing the exposure compensation certainly changes the raw files.

Might I expand a little on this?

Yo OP: When you set EC, it is actually an instruction to the camera asking it to adjust on the parameters (in its disposal, says shutter speed & ISO [if in Auto] under A mode, or f/stop & ISO [if in Auto] under S mode, or ISO [if in Auto] under M mode etc...) for an effect, say, if EC=-1ev, under A mode your camera will increase shutter speed or reduce ISO by 1ev for an effect of -1ev on in-camera meter scale.

As there is a real changes in parameters, therefore the end product, no matter it is RAW or JPG will capture with that amount of bias.

On the other hand, it is correct in saying that the white balance has not yet been applied to the raw file.

Yes. However if the RAW will be opened by a compatible RAW converter (e.g. the OM Workspace(?) or other converters which can read the embossed info of the RAW file, the used WB will be applied on default opening of the file. So will also be other effects applied on shooting. While the RAW file will only have the effect been stored somewhere on the file, it will be read and apply by default by compatible converter.

The benefit of RAW is the WB will not actually been applied so we can ignore that source of shooting info and adjust the WB easily from the same pile of original data.

However I could be wrong but IIRC certain effect, e.g. sharpness and NR etc will be baked into the Olympus RAW. Therefore it is not 100% correct in sich statement.

So I decided to test this by setting the camera to RAW plus JPEG and then (a) shooting the same scene with normal, +1, and -1 exposures, and then (b) going back to the normal exposure and making a few shots by changing the WB manually (and only that) to very different settings.

If the user manual is correct, the JPEGs should all look different, but the RAW files should look identical. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. When I downloaded them onto my RAW image editor, all the RAW files look different too. Unless I'm doing this wrong, it looks like exposure compensation and WB adjustments do affect RAW files. Is this correct? Does anything else?

2. Is the histogram really useful when shooting RAW?

I've read many times about the value of using the camera's built-in histogram to achieve correct exposure. But then I also read somewhere that, if you're shooting RAW plus JPEG, the histogram only reads the JPEG image, not the corresponding RAW image. If that's the case, why should the histogram matter to someone shooting RAW images? In fact, wouldn't it give an inaccurate idea of how well exposed the RAW image actually is?

The histogram does not give an accurate representation of the raw file, particularly the extent to which blown highlights can be recovered during raw processing. However, personally I find it accurate enough for my purposes. If it shows blown highlights, I will reduce the exposure until they are almost, but not quite, eliminated. That is good enough for me, but probably not for all photographers.

+1.

To OP:

I found the highlight blinky could be more useful than histogram on this front despite it is also based on JPG as histogram does. I can do the following for histogram but is more difficult and less easy to judge.

It is not hard to check for the headroom between RAW & JPG by observing the highlight blinky performance (it is called zebra on my brand). Simple home testing can i.d. the differences and when we do adjustment, taking the behavior into account will lead to quite accurate exposure setting (I suppose OP meant ETTR on RAW).

I did it on my GX85 & G85. Set Zebra to 105% (theoretically when it appears, the area covered should be white saturated), test with a very low contrast scene:

• take 1st shot at in-camera meter=0ev, then
• set in +ev through EC take the next shot before highlight blinky appear,
• the 3rd shot (+1/3ev further) when highlight blinky appears, then
• take on shots of +1/3ev each...

Look at the RAW file, examine their histogram to find out which one is the closest to ETTR. Says, if +1ev from zebra first appearing, upon this information we can set ETTR of RAW easily through the zebra appearing...

On GX85, for SOOC JPG, true ETTR will happen on +2/3ev after zebra first time appearing. It is around +1/3~2/3ev more for RAW.

On G85, for SOOC JPG, ETTR will happen on +1/3ev after zebra first appearing. Have not investigated in RAW of this particular model yet...

It is becoming very easy for me to set for ETTR or the effect to my taste (I have no problem to over expose meaningless highlight for a brighter overall output) by these zebra behaviour.

The following was my old record on searching for the exposure behavior of G85:

OP can find the same for the RAW of his camera too to push for max exposure for the shot. IMHO it is important for smaller size sensor system.

Would be grateful for any help forum members can give me with these issues.

--
Albert
** Please forgive my typo error.
** Please feel free to download my image and edit it as you like **

 

[Not too old to learn]

my RAW image editor

Every RAW image editor I've trialled, opens by displaying the JPEG embedded in the RAW file.

The only way I've found around this is to use a RAW converter programme, prior to using an image editor. Iridient Transformer is the only program I've found to do this.

the histogram only reads the JPEG image

A method of maximising the amount of highlights captured by your camera is covered by this article:

https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/calibrate-exposure-meter-to-improve-dynamic-range

Why it is best not to use your camera's histogram/blinkies/zebra stripes to set exposure is covered by this article:

www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/in-camera-histogram-doesn%27t-represent-exposure

The Three Most Obvious Reasons not to cull images based on previews is covered by this article:

https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/most-obvious-reasons-to-look-at-RAW

 

[Michael Fryd]

I'm actually not a beginner, but two things about digital photography have always puzzled me. I assumed I'd work them out eventually. Then decided to see if this forum could help.

1. What camera functions affect RAW files?

I've always assumed it is ONLY the basic exposure parameters (aperture, shutter speed, ISO). But I'm not sure that's right.

For example, the user manual for my new Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV says this: "RAW images consist of unprocessed image data to which settings such as exposure
compensation and white balance have yet to be applied." So I decided to test this by setting the camera to RAW plus JPEG and then (a) shooting the same scene with normal, +1, and -1 exposures, and then (b) going back to the normal exposure and making a few shots by changing the WB manually (and only that) to very different settings.

If the user manual is correct, the JPEGs should all look different, but the RAW files should look identical. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. When I downloaded them onto my RAW image editor, all the RAW files look different too. Unless I'm doing this wrong, it looks like exposure compensation and WB adjustments do affect RAW files. Is this correct? Does anything else?

The primary factor in RAW files is the exposure. This is the light hitting the sensor per unit area. Some cameras alter how this is recorded based on the ISO setting.

Exposure is primarily determined by subject illumination, aperture, and shutter speed.

Exposure Compensation is simply a bias on the metering. If the camera is in full Auto, Exposure compensation won't either the raw file or the JPEG. In any auto mode (or if you are using the meter to guide your manual exposure settings) Exposure Compensation will indirectly change the exposure (it changes the metering, and the metering is used to determine exposure settings).

2. Is the histogram really useful when shooting RAW?

I've read many times about the value of using the camera's built-in histogram to achieve correct exposure. But then I also read somewhere that, if you're shooting RAW plus JPEG, the histogram only reads the JPEG image, not the corresponding RAW image. If that's the case, why should the histogram matter to someone shooting RAW images? In fact, wouldn't it give an inaccurate idea of how well exposed the RAW image actually is?

Would be grateful for any help forum members can give me with these issues.

Typically, Histograms are based on the camera produced JPEG image. The short answer is that it can give you a general idea of what's happening in the RAW file, but it is not definitive.

If the histogram is telling you that you have no highlights in your image, then you can likely increase exposure without blowing out any pixels. It doesn't tell you exactly how much you can increase.

If the histogram is telling you that you have a lot of blown highlights, then you might have some, but you can't be sure.

Many cameras alter the data in the RAW files based on the ISO setting. As ISO affects the JPEG, there is some benefit to having the histogram based on the JPEG.

.

With digital "Well Exposed" has a different meaning than with film. With film, "well exposed" meant that the exposure level hit the sweet spot in the film's "S" shaped response curve. With Digital "Well Exposed" means that the ISO setting was a good match for the exposure.

In terms of reducing noise, the ideal exposure for a RAW capture is the highest exposure that doesn't blow out important highlights when the camera is set to base ISO.

 

[Doug Haag]

I'm actually not a beginner, but two things about digital photography have always puzzled me. I assumed I'd work them out eventually. Then decided to see if this forum could help.

1. What camera functions affect RAW files?

I've always assumed it is ONLY the basic exposure parameters (aperture, shutter speed, ISO). But I'm not sure that's right.

For example, the user manual for my new Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV says this: "RAW images consist of unprocessed image data to which settings such as exposure
compensation and white balance have yet to be applied." So I decided to test this by setting the camera to RAW plus JPEG and then (a) shooting the same scene with normal, +1, and -1 exposures, and then (b) going back to the normal exposure and making a few shots by changing the WB manually (and only that) to very different settings.

If the user manual is correct, the JPEGs should all look different, but the RAW files should look identical. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. When I downloaded them onto my RAW image editor, all the RAW files look different too. Unless I'm doing this wrong, it looks like exposure compensation and WB adjustments do affect RAW files. Is this correct? Does anything else?

I have not read earlier responses. So this point may have already been addressed.

With respect to ypur first observation, you do not say what raw processor you are using. But when I use the raw converter supplied by my camera manufacturer (Nikon), the default mode applies the jpeg control settings to the conversion of the raw file. But these effects are not baked into the data. They are merely the instructions the converter follows when rendering the image.

The raw data can be converted and rendered using other instructions. So it is not the raw data which is different, but rather the instructions followed in rendering it into a viewable image.

I ran into this in testing if raw files were influenced by "Active D-lighting" (a setting designed to preserve details in highlights and shadows). I shot the same scene (raw + jpeg) with the Active-D control both on and off. In default mode the default conversion of the raw file in the "OFF' position looked just like the jpeg with Active D off. But in the conversion software, I could change the setting to having Active D "ON" and when converted thusly, the raw file shot with Active D "OFF" looked exactly like the jpegs with Active D turned off.

So the effect was not inherent in the raw data, but rather something imposed during the conversion process that could be applied or not applied.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

I'm actually not a beginner, but two things about digital photography have always puzzled me. I assumed I'd work them out eventually. Then decided to see if this forum could help.

1. What camera functions affect RAW files?

I've always assumed it is ONLY the basic exposure parameters (aperture, shutter speed, ISO). But I'm not sure that's right.

For example, the user manual for my new Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV says this: "RAW images consist of unprocessed image data to which settings such as exposure
compensation and white balance have yet to be applied."

That's a bit misleading because raw files contain a) raw data, digital values for each pixel b) metadata that has all important (and not very important) camera settings so that a raw processor can properly render the image.

So I decided to test this by setting the camera to RAW plus JPEG and then (a) shooting the same scene with normal, +1, and -1 exposures, and then (b) going back to the normal exposure and making a few shots by changing the WB manually (and only that) to very different settings.

If the user manual is correct, the JPEGs should all look different, but the RAW files should look identical. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. When I downloaded them onto my RAW image editor, all the RAW files look different too. Unless I'm doing this wrong, it looks like exposure compensation and WB adjustments do affect RAW files. Is this correct? Does anything else?

raw files look the way your image processor/editor renders and displays them. Rendering is based on raw data from the raw file and raw metadata that comprises the camera settings. That's why the raw files get rendered differently.

2. Is the histogram really useful when shooting RAW?

Yes, but with a number of caveats. If you have a special custom white balance configured (so called "universal WB" or "UniWB"), the histogram will be usable (4ex: https://blog.kasson.com/using-in-caera-histograms-for-ettr/8-a-one-step-uniwb-procedure/)

Otherwise, if you don't want to do UniWB (which can be complicated) you can enable RGB histogram (if your camera has it) and generally, if RGB channels don't clip on the right side, you won't get clipping in raw. You won't be able to maximise the exposure though.

I've read many times about the value of using the camera's built-in histogram to achieve correct exposure.

Depends on what they mean by 'correct' exposure.

But then I also read somewhere that, if you're shooting RAW plus JPEG, the histogram only reads the JPEG image, not the corresponding RAW image.

Unfortunately it doesn't use raw even if you shoot raw exclusively. Also they say the histogram is based on jpeg for simplicity, in fact the live histogram is based on some internal in-camera render in sRGB colour space with camera settings applied - it's done before the camera writes a jpeg on the memory card.

If that's the case, why should the histogram matter to someone shooting RAW images?

Mostly the raw shooters should be concerned about the highlight clipping, so the right edge of the histogram is the most important part. The clipping can be detected by other means, not just histogram, but unfortunately, with modern (and old) digital cameras you'll have to seek workarounds like UniWB to be able to identify the highlight clipping reliably.

 

[viper699]

I’ve read the same info regarding the histogram. It is based on JPEG. There is a software called RawDigger that may be of interest to you

 

[baloo_buc]

What you see is the JPEG embedded in RAW. Should be identical with the JPEG saved separated.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

What you see is the JPEG embedded in RAW. Should be identical with the JPEG saved separated.

The OP was asking about raw editor, and raw editors generally don't use embedded jpegs.

 

[Autonerd]

1. What camera functions affect RAW files?

I've always assumed it is ONLY the basic exposure parameters (aperture, shutter speed, ISO). But I'm not sure that's right.

Well, first thing -- ISO is not an exposure setting. Exposure is concerned with how much light makes it to the sensor (or sensitive media), and that's aperture and shutter speed. ISO adjust brightness after the fact.

For example, the user manual for my new Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV says this: "RAW images consist of unprocessed image data to which settings such as exposure
compensation and white balance have yet to be applied."

I think Michael (or someone else) explained exposure compensation (EC) below. EC tells the camera to provide more or less exposure (bigger/smaller aperture, slower/faster shutter speed) than what the build-in light meter says to do. If you turn EC up, more light comes into the camera, so this would affect your .RAW images as well as your .JPGs. (Sorry if I'm repeating; I only skimmed the answers.)

2. Is the histogram really useful when shooting RAW?

I've read many times about the value of using the camera's built-in histogram to achieve correct exposure.

I'd suggest getting rid of the idea of a "correct" exposure, as that's a slippery subject with digital photography. Think more about getting an optimum exposure for your circumstances.

If you are shooting .JPGs, exposure (and ISO) will determine final image lightness/brightness, so the range of "correct" exposures is narrower. If you are shooting .RAW, the way to extract the most information possible is to get as much light onto the sensor as you can without blowing out the highlights (a "large" exposure), provisos being that the aperture you pick gives you the depth-of-field you want and the shutter speed gives you the blur you want (or prevents blur you don't want). Such an exposure would likely result in a blown-out .JPG, but in .RAW you can develop the data as you like.

This is a technique known as ETTR (Expose To The Right) and the histogram can help you get there.

I'm mostly a film and .JPG shooter (havent' been able to make the time to learn .RAW processing; too busy processing my film!) but once I took a shot of the grass behind my apartment, half in sun, half in shadow. In the .JPG the shadow was very dark and the sunlight almost blown out, but in .RAW I was able to equalize the brightness of the grass without losing detail. That's what I mean by maximum information; your camera records more than you can see in a .JPG.

Aaron

 

[sircarlphil]

Thank you all for your replies. A lot to take in, so I'll need to give it some careful thought. You've been very generous sharing your knowledge.

If I can follow up with two more brief questions regarding RAW images:

* Just to verify what I've read elsewhere... Is it true that most of the other settings available on modern digital cameras, aside from exposure compensation and WB as discussed above, will have no effect on RAW files? That is, sharpening, noise reduction, HDR, various kinds of "art" or "scene" filters, highlight/shadow control, etc.

* I understand what color space is (I think!). What I'm not sure is whether you can switch from one to the other after a RAW image is captured. That is, if I set the camera to sRGB and record RAW images, can those images later be converted somehow to Adobe RGB, if I want to? And vice versa?

 

[Ysarex]

Thank you all for your replies. A lot to take in, so I'll need to give it some careful thought. You've been very generous sharing your knowledge.

If I can follow up with two more brief questions regarding RAW images:

* Just to verify what I've read elsewhere... Is it true that most of the other settings available on modern digital cameras, aside from exposure compensation and WB as discussed above, will have no effect on RAW files? That is, sharpening, noise reduction, HDR, various kinds of "art" or "scene" filters, highlight/shadow control, etc.

That is correct. Unless the picture control causes and exposure change then the raw file is unaffected.

* I understand what color space is (I think!). What I'm not sure is whether you can switch from one to the other after a RAW image is captured. That is, if I set the camera to sRGB and record RAW images, can those images later be converted somehow to Adobe RGB, if I want to? And vice versa?

The color space set on the camera is only used to create the JPEG. Raw files have no assigned color space and that's another example of a JPEG adjustment that does nothing to a raw file.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Thank you all for your replies. A lot to take in, so I'll need to give it some careful thought. You've been very generous sharing your knowledge.

If I can follow up with two more brief questions regarding RAW images:

* Just to verify what I've read elsewhere... Is it true that most of the other settings available on modern digital cameras, aside from exposure compensation and WB as discussed above, will have no effect on RAW files?

Roughly speaking, raw file comprises raw data - so called digital numbers per each pixels, plus metadata. The metadata will have the current camera settings, including exposure compensation value and WB. Although exposure compensation value is almost useless in raw processing. It may be used by some HDR blending software. I think Lightroom might be using it as a reference.

That is, sharpening, noise reduction, HDR,

HDR in raw means multiple raw files taken with different exposures. Sharpening and noise reduction won't be in raw data, but suggested amount of sharpening or noise reduction can be in metadata directly or indirectly.

various kinds of "art" or "scene" filters, highlight/shadow control, etc.

It will have them in the metadata, but it'll be up to conversion software to use them.

* I understand what color space is (I think!). What I'm not sure is whether you can switch from one to the other after a RAW image is captured.

You can render RAW in whatever colour space into a jpeg, heif, tiff etc.

With jpeg, it's basically impossible without significant quality losses.

That is, if I set the camera to sRGB and record RAW images, can those images later be converted somehow to Adobe RGB, if I want to? And vice versa?

Your in-camera sRGB setting will affect out of camera jpegs and jpegs embedded in raw files as previews. However the embedded jpegs are largely ignored by the raw editing software, and you can render your raw files into sRGB, AdobeRGB, or whatever you like.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Thank you all for your replies. A lot to take in, so I'll need to give it some careful thought. You've been very generous sharing your knowledge.

If I can follow up with two more brief questions regarding RAW images:

* Just to verify what I've read elsewhere... Is it true that most of the other settings available on modern digital cameras, aside from exposure compensation and WB as discussed above, will have no effect on RAW files? That is, sharpening, noise reduction, HDR, various kinds of "art" or "scene" filters, highlight/shadow control, etc.

That is correct. Unless the picture control causes and exposure change then the raw file is unaffected.

raw file will be affected, see my message above. Picture control profiles/filters are a part of raw files.

The color space set on the camera is only used to create the JPEG. Raw files have no assigned color space and that's another example of a JPEG adjustment that does nothing to a raw file.

Same as above.

 

[Ysarex]

Thank you all for your replies. A lot to take in, so I'll need to give it some careful thought. You've been very generous sharing your knowledge.

If I can follow up with two more brief questions regarding RAW images:

* Just to verify what I've read elsewhere... Is it true that most of the other settings available on modern digital cameras, aside from exposure compensation and WB as discussed above, will have no effect on RAW files? That is, sharpening, noise reduction, HDR, various kinds of "art" or "scene" filters, highlight/shadow control, etc.

That is correct. Unless the picture control causes and exposure change then the raw file is unaffected.

raw file will be affected, see my message above. Picture control profiles/filters are a part of raw files.

That's terribly misleading. THE RAW DATA IS UNAFFECTED. The supplemental information stored with the raw data does not alter the raw data in any way and may be considered or not during raw processing.

The color space set on the camera is only used to create the JPEG. Raw files have no assigned color space and that's another example of a JPEG adjustment that does nothing to a raw file.

Same as above.

Same as above.