Custom white balance of D800E and raw converters

[nlred]

I use Lightroom for my raw conversion and initial processing before moving to PS CC.
LR is not displaying my images with the Kelvin scale WB I set while photographing. I do not photograph in the Jpeg format.

What is the best way to deal with this so that I have the WB inputs?

[fdisilvestro]

Each Raw converter uses its own criteria. The only way to have the exact values you set in the camera is by using Capture NX-D (or equivalent) 

[Simon Garrett]

Yes, I find with my D800 that images may look the same in NX-D and Lightroom, but don't report identical WB figures.  One I've just opened one taken in sunlight, auto WB, and in NX-D it shows 4852K and zero on the green-magenta axis.  In Lightroom it shows 4650K and +16 towards magenta.  But they look the same. 

[Jimbo57]

My understanding is that any WB settings made on the camera have no effect at all on the Raw file.

If you use one of Nikon's proprietary Raw converters, then the data attached to the Raw will be read and applied to the Raw during conversion.

If you use Lightroom (as I do), then the attached data is not used but LR's "image-adaptive" algorithms will apply the settings that the software decides best suits the image. In my experience, LR usually gets it pretty much as I want it, at least as a starting point for further processing.

[digitaldog]

My understanding is that any WB settings made on the camera have no effect at all on the Raw file.

Correct, it's just metadata and a suggestion the converter can use or ignore and more importantly interpret as individually designed. CCT Kelvin values define a range of colors so YMMV. Forget the specific numeric values unless you need to apply the same settings to many similar images. The number that produces a rendering you desire is the right number!

[AlterEgo]

My understanding is that any WB settings made on the camera have no effect at all on the Raw file.

it may not be exactly so for all cameras all the time, some manufacturers may decide to alter raw data (balance raw channels) before writing a raw file in some camera models based on a particular WB... you never know unless you actually test...

[digitaldog]

it may not be exactly so for all cameras all the time, some manufacturers may decide to alter raw data (balance raw channels) before writing a raw file in some camera models based on a particular WB...

Which cameras?

[AlterEgo]

Which cameras?

Nikon is known to do this scaling indep. of WB - and then from the manufacturers standpoint who knows may be somebody else out there is doing the next "logical" step (a step further) and takes into account the dialed (or detected) spectrum  to align the channels even "better"

[digitaldog]

Got two NEF's that exhibit this behavior you can share?

[AlterEgo]

Got two NEF's that exhibit this behavior you can share?

I do not use Nikon, sorry - but if you mean raw channels scaling independent of WB then there were enough topics here on LuLa and elsewhere... or even you can read Nikon (their websites) itself (google) = "...Color-independent pre-conditioning prior to A/D conversion...", so my logic is this - it may happen that some manufacturer(s) may decide to alter raw data (balance raw channels) before writing a raw file in some camera models based on a particular WB which will be a step further from "their" logic in doing good for users... we all know that analog amplification (gain) in some sensors does good w/ noise in deep shadows... so if WB indicates for example that there are a loot of headroom in blue channel (say tungsten light) may be it makes sense to amplify that channel pre ADC to gain some benefits noisewise... note that I said "may" and "you never know unless you actually test".

[digitaldog]

so my logic is this - it may happen that some manufacturer(s) may decide to alter raw data (balance raw channels) before writing a raw file in some camera models based on a particular WB which will be a step further from "their" logic in doing good for users... we all know that analog amplification (gain) in some sensors does good w/ noise in deep shadows... so if WB indicates for example that there are a loot of headroom in blue channel (say tungsten light) may be it makes sense to amplify that channel pre ADC to gain some benefits noisewise... note that I said "may" and "you never know unless you actually test".

Your logic is sound, I still prefer to see an actual demonstration. Like you, I don't use Nikon.

[kirkt]

The raw digger folks mention Nikon raw color channel pre-conditioning here:

http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/rawdigger-histograms-overexposure-shapes

kirk

[digitaldog]

I'll check it out, thanks!

[fdisilvestro]

The so called "pre-conditioning" in Nikon's red and blue channels is independent of the white balance selected. On the other hand, the Nikon D1 did bake the white balance in the NEF file.

Another comment: LR applies by default the white balance selected in the camera, based on the multipliers for the R and B channels (available in the EXIF), not the temperature values.

[AlterEgo]

I still prefer to see an actual demonstration.

a prev. poster mentioned Nikon D1 (a very old camera, indeed) as an example where WB multipliers were apparently somewhat baked in in (not sure if one or two "in" are correct here) raw data (so that was a step above/further /may be not in a good sense/ vs indep. scaling /pre WB/ in many Nikon models)... so may he /that poster/ can share the origin of that info about D1 if has that handy/on top of his memory ?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The so called "pre-conditioning" in Nikon's red and blue channels is independent of the white balance selected.

Yes, That seems to be the case currently. When NEF files are inspected with e.g. RawDigger, one can usually see some combing (skipping of DNs) in the histograms of the Red and Blue filtered sensels, a typical result from a multiplication of the Raw data. Nikon presumably does that to allow dropping the lower bits for e.g. compression. Nikon Raws, are not always that Raw, sometimes they are 12-bit/ch, at other occasions they are 14-bit/ch, depending on the camera settings.

Cheers,
Bart

[fdisilvestro]

So far the only (best) explanation about why the preconditioning is performed was given by forum member "TheSuede" (many posters identify it exists, but don't explain why):

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=74178.msg604604#msg604604

To see why the preconditioning is included in the flow, you just have to follow the signal flow in the Milbaut Expeed.

Some parts of the signal conditioning is made as the signal from the sensor FIRST streams into the logic unit, basically all parts that are supposed to go into the raw file type of choice (14, 14LC, 14C, 12, 12LC, 12C).

Other parts aren't applied to the signal/image until after the entire image has been one round through the buffer memory - like dark-frame subtraction (long exposure NR), jpg conversion settings, jpg-compression and so on.

To use the Compressed format, the channels need to be aligned to their respective maximum before the gamma-like curve is applied to avoid as much of the unavoidable gradation loss as possible. This means that the multiplication has to be placed before the compression choices in the raw in-flow before the first buffering. Remember that this are hardcoded signal flows.

When not in Compressed raw mode, the conditioning could theoretically be turned off - but then you'd have the peculiar problem that your WB multipliers would be different depending on if you chose Compressed or uncompresssed / LC raw files. So keep it in. It's not like they (the holes in the histogram) actually do any visible harm to the image quality. In theory they might, in practice they don't.