The way I see it (and this is entirely untechnical/uneducated) is that the camera WB setting is akin to telling the camera to apply a filter to the data recorded. If the WB setting is considered by the camera pre recording, then it should affect the resulting exposure...
I.e. you take two pictures of a light...one WB setting tells the camera the light should be white, the other WB setting tells the camera the light should be "browner"....the second WB setting *should* result in a lower exposure and affect the camera's metering....(the camera would bump the metering/exposure to prevent underexposure)
If the WB setting is applied after recording, then it would not affect the camera's metering, but would affect the levels of what is displayed (it's exposure, the second setting would appear underexposed)
To my mind exposure is ALWAYS what is recorded...it is determined by settings..Correct exposure is determined by metering.
WB is always the "correct" color of light and" filtering" to correct for differences between the way we see things and the "literal" way a camera sees things.
If it's a raw file, then it only affects things when you apply them in post.....most programs apply the "settings" to the displayed image even in RAW...they just are not "applied" until saved in conversion.....But try looking at an image in Lightroom or similar...one with no camera settings/profiles applied, and then with "as recorded"....The difference can be striking in many aspects....including apparent exposure.....
I say "apparent exposure" because "what" was recorded (the exposure) does not change, but who really cares about that? We care about how it is presented and that does change.
Is any of this huge? I doub't it, but I don't know....I don't even "know" my understanding is entirely correct...
|