> The variable color balance was a case of having the White Balance > set to Auto rather than a preset and putting to much light on the backdrop. > This would have happened regardless of what format I saved them as. Personally, I would rather use Jim's workflow than yours for dealing with the corrections. That's because I'm not a PJ and I don't do your sort of shots. > I mentioned in my first post that this is a correction that takes two > seconds to adjust in PS. But you don't have access to the data to achieve the same result: the in-camera software has already ditched the bits it didn't think you needed. But if you are happy with the results, fine. NOTE: For your purposes this may not be an issue. For people wanting the absolute best quality available it might be. There is a myth perpetuated by people that don't want the cost/aggravation of dealing with hi-bit files that 8-bit files are as good. It is a fallacy. > Which I would have had to do regardless of how I saved them in the camera. > Also this was just an instance where I made the mistake. We're back at the same point: your camera made a decision for you based on what you told it. In Jim's case (always save raw) the decision has not yet been made irrevocably. The choice of white balance mode is made at the time the raw file is decoded: if rong, decode it again. If you only download the jpeg the data is already lost, permanetly. > The lights and camera only do what I set them to do........................ You really think you understand everything the camera is doing for you ;o) The hardest thing for most of us camera users is that the makers don't release the details of "how" the cameras work - it's all propriety BS. Note2: this discussion has moved on from your intial problem (which you appear to have solved). Bob
