bdo Loc: Colorado

There have been several lengthy threads about RAW "images", especially "RAW vs. JPEG".

(I don't want to turn this into a rant, but I'm going to have trouble keeping myself in check.)

There is no such thing as a "raw image"

There, I've said it. I expect a storm of denial, but the simple fact is that a RAW file is just a string of ones and zeros.

Often, a RAW file is compared to a film negative. This is only partially true. A RAW file is comparable to an exposed film negative BEFORE IT IS DEVELOPED. The film negative contains all of the information required to create an image, but that image depends completely on the developing process. Similarly, the RAW data file contains all the information required to create an image, but that data must be run through some kind of software (developing).

With film, there are different ways to bring out the image contained in the (undeveloped) exposed film. As with film, the final digital image depends very much on the processes used to convert the data file (RAW) into a photographic image that more or less resembles what the photographer saw through the viewfinder.

I know I am hoping in vain, but I do hope that we can put an end to using the phrase "RAW image". That's an oxymoron. There are JPEG images, TIFF images and many others I don't even know about.

But there is no such thing as a "RAW image".

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Okay. You've made your point. Most of us have known this. Newbies don't. Kinda like DPI and PPI used interchangeably. It doesn't bother me unless I am expected to be technically correct on an exam.

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

I suppose that comes from the camera makers who use the term to describe what you have. It may be incorrect but that's what they use - even in their owner manuals.

I suppose it could be like calling video "film" which most of the civilized world does these days - it's wrong but still they use it because most of the civilized world doesn't care about being correct, not really correct.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

I look at a lot of Nikon manuals, and I've never seen Nikon ever make a reference to a RAW file being an image file.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

What term would you use to refer to an image that was shot in raw?

Dr.db Loc: Central Point, OR

...and a lot of people still call audio and video recording "taping." I wish there was a good, new replacement word for that. :)

As to raws, I usually call them "raw files" (not capitalized, dammit ;) ), but if you call it a "RAW image" I'm pretty sure that anybody who cares will still know what you're talking about.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I always refer to raw data or raw files, never to raw images.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

See below (D750).

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Yeah, that is a nuisance. It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about, or you're using old equipment. What else can you say, though - "digitizing" "recording"?

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The rest of it you nailed, but this one sentence can be better stated.

Even image files (JPEG, TIFF, etc.) are just a string of ones and zeros. That don't mean a thing.

The data in a RAW file is "raw sensor data". It does not constitute data for one single image, and cannot be viewed as a single image. It's enough resources to generate many different images. (Kinda like the way a lumber yard has the resources to build many different kinds of houses.)

An image file has the data for just one image, which can be viewed by display on a monitor or a print. You can't view it as one of the other images that could have been made, just the one. It may not be perfect if the display mechanism isn't right, but the idea is that every display is as close as the display can get. (Like cutting up the boards and building houses, a different crew with the same drawings may get it slightly different, but it's the same one. And after that is done it can't be changed from a ranch style to a villa.)

Raw files have raw sensor data. Image files have image data. The data is very different.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Do you put "motor oil" in your car engine?
Ever gone to Dairy Queen for an "ice cream" cone.
Does your house have a "half bath" where you can bathe in the sink?

It's all about accepted terminology, and Nikon uses RAW image interchangeably with RAW file. Pages 84-86, D800 User's Manual:
"Two images are recorded, one NEF (RAW) image and one fine-quality JPEG image."
"NEF (RAW) images can be viewed on the camera...."
"NEF (RAW) images are recorded at a bit depth of 12 bits."

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

But if the picture is on your monitor, and you call someone over to look at it, how would you describe it? Raw file?

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

By garsh you are right! Nikon does use it that way.

And we have always known that Japanese translations to English are dead on perfect use of correct terminology!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

You have a point there.

http://www.pinterest.com/jparbon/funny-japanese-signs/

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

When this thread starts to fizzle out, we can start discussing why RAW is often capitalized. It's not an acronym, like NEF.