spoolin01
Contributor
I can try this next time I'm in Hawaii, but I don't think my eye is discriminating enough to know how to see a difference that might be there, but subtle.
Raw, Red filters & WB...oh my!
- Thread starter cpanddp
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
under water
Contributor
That would be a great test. Look for a differences in grain in the darker parts of the picture. I would be curious to see if the addition of a filter causes the sensors to work harder (less light) or if the more neutral balance allows for less dramatic changes in post processing of the RAW files.
Viz'art
Contributor
I differ on that point profoundly, Color correction filter are a very usefull tool and would recommend reading the following before claiming they went out the windows when RAW showed up, M A G I C - F I L T E R S
If you remove red from the environment you are shooting in, then the camera will try to compensate by pushing the blue and green into submission, adding the filter rebalances the color environment of the scene so that the color space of your camera has a healthier file to work with. it does make a big difference when you start enlarging the image or submitting them for publications.
If you remove red from the environment you are shooting in, then the camera will try to compensate by pushing the blue and green into submission, adding the filter rebalances the color environment of the scene so that the color space of your camera has a healthier file to work with. it does make a big difference when you start enlarging the image or submitting them for publications.
Gilligan
Contributor
The Magic Filter examples shown on the site are all JPEG photos indicating the comparison between using the Magic Filter and not using it. There are no comparisons of using the filter with RAW.
The only RAW comparison on that site is the difference between Auto and Manual WB to indicate the amount of digital noise. I'm not sure what they mean by "manual" white balance? When you shoot RAW you don't calibrate your WB pre-shot? There are no examples there that I can see with and without a filter shooting RAW.
I would still need to see a RAW shot with and without a red filter to convince me the filter makes an improvement when shooting RAW on non-strobe shots.
jdandvalerie
Contributor
Just throwing in my 2 cents. I do not think the red filters are necessary when shooting RAW. That being said, when shooting raw I still manually set my WB using a white card. My reason for this is for video. I shoot with a Canon 7d and always use a custom WB, if I am "strobe-less". When I take stills, I'm still using a custom WB carried over from my video setting unless of course I have my strobes in which I will change to AWB for stills.
Evin if I'm shooting Raw with Custom WB, when I'm processing the stills, I'll still tweak the WB.
My opinion is based on personal preference and quality of work when it's all said and done, but I haven't used red filters in over 5 years. As soon as I was able to shoot RAW (and subsequently shoot video with a custom WB) there was no need for a filter.
As Giligan said above, a post editing comparison of a few shots would be the only way for you to settle this for yourself. But all the literature I have read indicates that RAW=no filter needed/no custom WB for stills as it is unncessary.
Similar threads
