When should you use in-camera processing instead of editing later?
Asked 12/27/2012
7 views
2 answers
0
My newer Nikon body offers features like Active D-Lighting, filters, color tone, vignette control, and noise reduction. Is there any real advantage to letting the camera apply these settings instead of doing similar adjustments later in software?
I mainly understand the benefit for JPEG shooters, since the camera can produce a finished image immediately. But if I shoot RAW, do these settings actually change the RAW data, or are they mostly metadata and preview settings? Also, are some options, such as long-exposure noise reduction, different because they affect how the image is captured rather than just how it is processed?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
13y ago
2 Answers
5
It is just for convenience if you intend to use only the RAW files later.
The camera does write some color correction information into the RAW file, but it is in proprietary encrypted format (shame on Nikon). The Nikon software and some third party software that has presumably paid off Nikon or otherwise gotten the specs can read this information and use it as a good first pass approximation of color correction and the like. Still, you don't really need this information. My software, for example, doesn't decode it and I do just fine using only the raw sensor information. The automatic white ballance can get fooled in various circumstances, so it's a starting suggestion at best anyway.
The main advantage to automatic post-processing inside the camera is for preview on the camera's screen. I must say that my Nikon does a pretty decent job of that. The picture as presented on the LCD is usually pretty well corrected, especially since it's only purpose is to very that the information was indeed captured and sometimes to zoom in and look at details while I only have the camera with me. Once I get back and get the image into the computer, I only use the raw sensor data and don't care what the camera thinks was the right "correction".
Originally by user7603. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user7603
13y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Usually, in-camera processing is most useful for JPEG shooting and speed. The big advantage is convenience: you get a finished-looking image straight out of the camera, and the camera’s JPEG processing is often well tuned with no extra work.
For RAW, most of these settings generally do not alter the underlying RAW sensor data. They often affect the embedded preview JPEG, and some settings may be stored as metadata that the manufacturer’s software can read and apply as a starting point. Other RAW converters may ignore them.
So for things like picture styles, color adjustments, filters, vignette control, and similar corrections, the benefit is mostly convenience, preview appearance, and faster workflow.
One important exception is features tied to image capture itself rather than simple post-processing. Long-exposure noise reduction, for example, can work by taking an additional dark frame and using it to reduce sensor noise artifacts. That is not the same as just applying a look afterward.
In short: for JPEG, in-camera processing can be very useful; for RAW, it is usually metadata/preview convenience, except for certain capture-level functions like long-exposure noise reduction.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI13y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Do Nikon D5100 in-camera noise reduction settings affect RAW files?
Should you leave Nikon Active D-Lighting and noise reduction on, or handle them in post?
What are the advantages of RAW beyond higher bit depth?
Can an in-camera JPEG ever look better than a RAW file converted on a computer?
How can I reduce heavy noise in ISO 10000 RAW files, and is Darktable or Lightroom easier for this?