Are scene modes, white balance, color tones, and similar just post-processing effects?

Question

What happens when the following settings are changed:

• White balance
• Color tones
• Scene modes

Are these parameters affect the way in which the photo is taken or they are just applied by processing by camera after taking the image?

Or do these parameters change the way the image sensor records the image?

What about changing the contrast, or sharpness?

Answer

The question What's "real" and what's "virtual" on a (digital) camera? has several answers which list the things which are "real" — that is, the things which affect the capture of the RAW image. To crib from the top answers, these things are:

• ISO
• Aperture
• Shutter Speed
• Focus

with some more technical things like image stabilization and mirror lockup as well.

The answers there don't really cover what's "not real", except by elimination, so let me go over your specifics.

White balance and color tones do not affect these "real" things directly — they're applied to the RAW image in in-camera (or out of camera) post processing. However, it's not quite straightforward, since the selected options can affect the metering — a very blue-shifted white balance might cause a different interpretation of what the exposure should be than a very yellow-shifted one. That, in turn, may make the camera's automatic modes choose slightly different settings. But that's a bit esoteric: the straight answer is white balance and color tones are "after effects".

But "scene modes" are somewhat different, since they apply a whole grab-bag of different settings. Some of these, like a fast shutter speed for a sports mode, will almost certainly affect the real image. Others, like portrait modes, may simply chose post-processing options more suited for delicate-appearing skin.

Your last two, contrast and sharpness, are also an "it depends". These things are strongly influenced by the lens you use, your aperture selected, and correct focus. So in that sense, they are real and unalterable. But, local and global contrast can also be boosted in post-production, and usually is — in fact, usually very much so in the default JPEG output from most cameras. Without that, the out-of-camera images would look much more dull and flat than we are accustomed to. A good camera — or RAW processing software — will give you a lot of individual control over these parameters in the post-processing sense.

Check more discussion of this question.

Should I use RAW or JPEG for wedding photography?

Question

I am about to shoot in a wedding ceremony and would like to know, Should I shoot in RAW or JPEG?

I asked a photographer (outside the US) and he said converting RAW into JPG changes color (or something like that) so they always shoot in JPG. I won't buy it unless someone convinces me here. I see the convenience of shooting in JPG: no conversion, smaller size — and, adjust lighting and the photo is ready.

I have a Nikon D5100 and a 16 GB card, so I can take plenty of RAW pics. My RAW file size is +22MB vs JPEG is 1.3-4 MB.

Is RAW always required or is RAW for some times and JPG is fine too?

I know there are related question but this question is related to wedding photography only. Thanks. Let me clarify. I think in Pakistan photographers never shoot in RAW.

Answer

JPEG offers two advantages (other than how many images you can fit on a card) that may be extremely significant under the right circumstances: the speed of workflow after the shoot (assuming you've gotten things right in camera) and the speed at which you can shoot.

RAW files take a lot longer to write to the card than JPEGs do (and RAW+JPEG takes longer still), so in the genres of photography where you need to take a lot of pictures quickly, a given camera will almost always perform better when shooting JPEGs. That is important to sports and wedding photographers as well as to photojournalists. The absolute last thing you want is to have your shutter release locked or delayed because your camera's buffer is full. And it doesn't matter whether that means getting the 9-10 FPS of a high-end speed demon like the Nikon D3s or the Canon EOS 1D Mk. IV or squeezing 3-4 FPS out of an older or entry-to-mid-level camera, having to wait for the buffer to write out to the card may mean missing the only shot that counts.

And while JPEGs limit you in what you can do in post-processing, they also limit what you have to do in post-processing. That difference in turn-around time can make a big difference to the amount of work you are able to take on, especially when you're working at the lower-priced, more cut-throat end of the industry. It may take (on average) a thirtieth of a second to take a picture, but it takes a lot longer than that to review, cull, and refine them afterwards. Even an extra ten seconds per picture (or series) can mean giving up another shooting day, so the financial advantages to shooting RAW and getting it right in-camera are very real at that level. Most of the better cameras will let you set custom picture settings (more than one) so that your "signature look" can happen primarily in the camera.

Of course, if you get it wrong in-camera shooting JPEGs, you can't hide your mistakes nearly as easily or as well. So you need to balance the business risks of missing the shot, taking too long in post and having the ultimate control in post. A best-case compromise might be to shoot the formals (the ones that you can take some time over, and that have to be absolutely perfect) in RAW and the spontaneous action in JPEG. But it is a business decision, not a photographic one.

Check more discussion of this question.