Living_ Eyes

I take alot of street photography so I usually shoot in raw+jpeg. I'm always striving for perfection on the camera end but sometimes I need the raw file for some correction. I use both tools when needed.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

The original question was, "Did Ansel Adams shoot in the RAW mode?".

Yes, there was no digital when AA was shooting. But there was "RAW", film.

Yes, today RAW has been defined as "A camera RAW image is an unprocessed photograph captured with a digital camera".

But, since film is an unprocessed image recorded by a camera, is it not RAW? The image was, and still is by some, recorded on film. With digital it is recorded by a sensor. Film was then developed in the darkroom, then manipulated by dodging and burning then printed. We do the same thing with digital, but with a computer.

So, I would say he shot raw, since the definition of raw is also "unprocessed", and in both processes, film and digital, you can do nothing with the image untill it is processed!. Wouldn't you?

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

Frank, from what I'm seeing in all these pages, logic isn't working very well. But, you stated it very well.

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

Dumb responders, myself included.

David Taylor

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Thanks Niel, but, some of us understand and some do not. This thread also went almost immediately from the original question by the OP to a RAW vs JPG discussion, which it usually does. I stated it earlier in the thread but is shorter form. Others have also.

Happy new year.

Canisdirus

Well, the original question sort of infers the debate.

David Taylor

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Not a bad way of putting it.

Or maybe we could say that exposed film has no "image" at all--it only becomes a visible image when developed.

Another way to put it is that film has a "latent image" after it is exposed, or a "potential image."

Digital raw data in our cameras also is not a visible image--call it a latent or potential image, or just call it digital data (not an image yet). It must pass through the veil that separates the potential from the actual, before it is a picture--it must be formatted for the eye.

I do not know what quantum physics would call the RAW data; certainly not anything visible even if magnified a trillion times... Similarly, the atomic structure on film will undergo molecular change in developing, yes? But this undeveloped film itself is not itself an image either. Atoms are theoretical, and not (they tell us) the sort of thing one could see. If you see radiant heat as a form of light beyond the ken of our eyes (and in a sense, erstwhile matter), RAW digital photo manifolds are analogous to the exposed silver atoms in film, not yet transformed (darkened) to make an image.

The old photographers were alchemists who turned silver into gold; they have now advanced to turning quarks into gold. Neither knew how it all worked, like the sorcerer's apprentice who summoned unnatural powers. Chiffon margarine tried to fool mother nature, and for a while succeeded... but where are they now?

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-symantec-ext_onb&hsimp=yhs-ext_onb&hspart=symantec&p=not+nice+to+fool+mother+nature#id=1&vid=dffebb31e136ba82a504daf397578bca&action=click

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Well - - FWIW - I always shoot RAW + JPG
IF the JPG as processed by the camera turns out OK - then that's what I keep.
If the camera misses the point - AND it's a photo I need - reprocessing the RAW in Post is a lifesaver.
-
Ansel Always worked with RAW (equivalent), doing his post-processing in the darkroom.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Interesting.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

I should start doing that. I have both a D7100 and D7200, each with two 32 GB SD cards. Plenty of room for both file types. My most prolific shooting day I shot, maybe, 700 images. I've got a 5 TB hard drive so there is plenty of room THERE, as well.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Not really, maybe so? It really only requires a yes or no. But........ You really can't answer without explanation, which leads to a debate. We all have our opinions on application of jpeg vs raw.... Each has its own place. But...... It's kinda hard to argue AA SHOT RAW. one of raw decimations is "unprocessed data". Film AND digital both qualify for that. Some may be able to prove other wise, but I have not seen it yet, to convince me.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Both film and digital produce a " negative" so to speak". Film has to be processed to make it visible to the human eye. Digital raw files are processed into into a jpg for viewing . The digital jpg, or other way of viewing, is like the film negative and must be printed to view, except the digital can be printed to a screen, instead of paper.

Probably digital is closer to slides. Both film, negative or positive, have to be processed to be viewable. Untill that point, they are raw data.

This is probably the longest thread in history.... Because everyone has their own idea. But by definition, "raw is unprocessed data". 28 pages and going.

Living_ Eyes

Sorry, I had gotten caught up in the discussion.
I really think the question was, did Ansel Adams's preferred film equal the latitudes of a present day raw file or a Jpeg file.