I'm sorry, cos I said I'd shut upbut despite your demo, I don't believe that can be true. The RAW format records the light that hits the sensor. This is not affected by how you set the WB in camera. There's really nothing more to add. I think your subtle variations must have some other explanation, probably something to do with how the histogram is generated.
OK. I'm no longer subscribed to this thread so tag me or PM me will you?
Yes, that I can believe. What @snerkler is saying (and apparently others too) is that what is recorded in the RAW file is affected by the WB setting. Just in case I was losing my marbles, I Googled it some more, and can't find any reputable source suggesting that it does. Indeed, some fairly knowledgeable (and combative) experts such as Andrew Rodney are very clear that it doesn't. Admittedly we do not know exactly what camera manufacturers do to make their RAW files (it's proprietary after all), so it's not impossible but it would be an odd thing to do, I can't find any evidence to support it happening. But like Toby, I would be interested to see some. I try to keep an open mind, after all.
My son, doing his best modelling pose, on my first trip out with the X-T1 and 23mm 1.4...
]
Hmmm that I'm not convinced about TBH, the histograms from the jpegs and RAW files are quite different. The histograms in camera are most definitely the ones from the jpeg, and why sometimes you can get quite a surprise when you open up the RAW. However, the histograms from the RAW files when you open up in LR etc (such as those posted) are those based on the RAW and not the jpeg files. I can't post examples as I'm only on the phone, but it's quite easy to see if you shoot RAW and jpeg and load both into LR etc.
I agree most online places do say that RAW is RAW and not affected by any settings, which is why I was so sceptical at the Nikon class (in fact both Nikon classes I've been to), and hence why I tested myself. I find it very interesting, even if it is a bit pointless
I think it's fair to say that WB does affect the RAW histogram if you don't standardise it in post, so if you shot at 4000k and 6000k and left them like that the histogram would look quite different, as you'd expect. I've not found any software that displays a 'default' WB for RAW, they always display the WB that you shot. Whether the RAW histogram looks the same if you shot one at 4000 k and one at 6000k and adjusted both the 5000k for example I'm not sure. My tests show there is a teeny variation, but I guess there could have been some variation from one shot to the other (although I'm not sure what). It'd be interesting to know (for my geekiness) whether anyone else has run tests and what their results are?
November Sunrise by Alan Jones, on Flickr
But the histogram is based on the RAW data not the jpeg data is it not? If it wasn't then the RAW and jpeg histograms would be identical wouldn't they?
I think you'd be alright at 14mm. It's the 10-12mm range that suffer apparently and even then it's only the three filter holder that causes it. A single filter holder is apparently alright.
Suffices for most of my photographic needs apart from ultrawide and shooting handheld in low light.
But I'm not much of a telephoto person.
I've just bought the hitech firecrest 100mm filter holder and some of their resin grads (well Santa's bought them so don't have them yet
) so looking forward to trying them out. 100mm filter set is overkill for the Fooj I know, but the reason is that my 85mm set causes vignetting at 18mm on my D750. I bet the new holder will dwarf the XT1
Not bad is it
No, you're right. What you're seeing in LR is a histogram based on the RAW data put through the current settings of the demosiacing algorithm, is my understanding. What that results in, I'm not sure, but I would guess it's probably a TIFF, because that's what PSD files are, under the skin. Reading through the links that @SsSsSsSsSnake provided, the idea that WB could affect the RAW seems to have arisen from two places. One is that on the Nikon D1, it really did
. The other is that some software has had bugs that introduced errors if you tried to correct the WB in post when channels were blown, leading people to think that because they couldn't get the WB back, it must therefore be in the RAW data somehow. But on modern cameras, as far as I can tell, the RAW file simply records the values registered by individual sensors. Everything else like WB is just add-on tags that can be used or ignored as preferred.
No, you're right. What you're seeing in LR is a histogram based on the RAW data put through the current settings of the demosiacing algorithm, is my understanding. What that results in, I'm not sure, but I would guess it's probably a TIFF, because that's what PSD files are, under the skin. Reading through the links that @SsSsSsSsSnake provided, the idea that WB could affect the RAW seems to have arisen from two places. One is that on the Nikon D1, it really did
On a side note, I have discovered reading about all this that you can use something called Unity White Balance to get a more accurate histogram out of your camera, by taking a black frame and using that to get a truly neutral WB for your sensor. The trouble is that it's very green, making LiveView hard to use. Probably not worth the bother, as if you're that concerned about using all the RAW headroom, just use a handheld meter and expose for the highlights.
But why would I need a receipt for something I've had all along? [emoji56]To you and me, yes, the difference is fairly obvious but to your average Joanne, a lens is a lens is a lens. If the 100-400 suddenly appeared in place of the 18mm or similar, she might notice but a relatively small difference in size will probably go unspotted. You could always fake up a receipt for £100 or so and say that it was a bargain you couldn't pass up!!!
Not cheap are they
That's why I went for the hitech resin filters rather than their firecrest ones or Lee ones as one filter alone can be over £200 
Just can't justify that. The resin ones were £65 each but you could buy packs of 3, and with the 25% off it made it about £115 for 3 IIRC, so roughly £38 per filter which I thought was reasonable. I want their reversed grad but it's £177 plus VAT for the 100 x 150mm
Likewise. I now have the 10-24mm to carry about instead as I was determined not to (totally) duplicate focal lengths. Oh well.
DSCF3609 (2)