01-22-2020 01:05 AM
<snipped a bit for brevity>
True but it can not be viewed. Something has to be added to it and processed to make a viewable image. Whether it is DPP which reads and uses all the camera settings or LR that just uses enough to get you an image you can see, its there.
To further complicate this LR can be told to apply any number of user presets that will overwrite any camera settings. Again the botom line is increased editing possibilities and a none destructive Raw file,
Ernie, all true. I didn't want to get too deep in the details to avoid confusing the answer.
The bottom line is the camera knows what you did and recorded all the data ... but did it in a way that did not destroy original information in order to apply your shooting preferences. It is sort of a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too.
The major benefits of shooting RAW are that it preserves the maximum amount of detail which provides the greatest possibility of success when post processing the image. Also, the RAW data is 14-bit color depth (vs. JPEG which is only 8-bit color depth). Each bit doubles the amount of information. Those extra 6 bits work out to 64 times more information in a RAW image then there is in a JPEG image.
The details of how the RAW data is converted into a full-color image are really another topic because those details don't change the answer to the original question.
01-22-2020 09:51 AM
"The bottom line is the camera knows what you did and recorded all the data ... but did it in a way that did not destroy original information in order to apply your shooting preferences."
No, as that resides in the metadata. The conversion editor reads some or all of it to make the viewable (LR) preview. The Raw data, that is simply the data caught by the camera sensor, is not affected.
"...the RAW data is 14-bit color depth..."
Absolutely, a huge benefit. Why anyone shoots jpg any longer is a total mystery to me.
01-22-2020 11:53 AM
Thank you all for the insight.
As I've learnt... basically on the exposure settings (iso, shutter speed and aperture) are the only settings in camera that are being used in LR. After applying my LR starting settings which change things like picture style, wb, contrast, sharpness, lens correction, etc. those camera settings don't transfer to the image, or are not appended to the image, on top of the settings I am changing them to in LR.
All that being said, we shouldnt forget about the new LR Profiles. As they don't change the settings used and just append to the raw file settings. So unless you change a setting specifially in LR... the new profiles don't seem to do that. :-) Another topic for discussion.
I think a lot of photographers don't really realize this. Very misunderstood topic for something that we should all know. I know I wasn't 100% clear on it and have been playing around with picutre style and syncing cameras to make sure they were all the same.
01-22-2020 12:01 PM
The big take away is, the folks that say Raw is not affected by any in camera settings are just partially correct. They don't effect the Raw data that is true. They do have an impact on how your Raw converter creates you a viewable preview. That preview image in LR or DPP is your starting point so it does impact it. Not considering any LR presets you use, of course.
02-17-2020 09:43 AM - edited 02-17-2020 09:49 AM
"The only thing that I can think of that is legitimately applied to the RAW data is the ISO (the gain setting). Boosting ISO applies an "amplifcation" (gain) to the data (you could do this in-camera... or you could it post-process on a computer). "
With Canon cameras, ISO is applied as analog amplification before analog-to-digital conversion and is irreversible. Any change made to the digital raw data in post is not the same as changing the ISO prior to digitization where quantization occurs. Boosting exposure in post processing is not the same as boosting the analog amplification prior to digitization and can lead to quantization errors.