"RAW images"
Apr 19, 2015 08:47:23 #
bdo wrote:
There have been several lengthy threads about RAW ... (show quote)
I get annoyed everyday by all kinds of things that are really not important; but the term "RAW image" doesn't phase me much.
Apr 19, 2015 08:50:43 #
Interesting thread.
I use Nikon and set my "quality" to "raw". That's what it says in my viewfinder. I didn't pick the term, I just use it. Do I understand it. Yes.
I know when I select the "raw" setting, I get all the pixelation from the sensor and the other data that Nikon "records" in the resulting file.
It's a good term because I understand what it will do when I select it.
I use Nikon and set my "quality" to "raw". That's what it says in my viewfinder. I didn't pick the term, I just use it. Do I understand it. Yes.
I know when I select the "raw" setting, I get all the pixelation from the sensor and the other data that Nikon "records" in the resulting file.
It's a good term because I understand what it will do when I select it.
Apr 19, 2015 09:00:35 #
photon56 wrote:
Interesting thread.
I use Nikon and set my "quality" to "raw". That's what it says in my viewfinder. I didn't pick the term, I just use it. Do I understand it. Yes.
I know when I select the "raw" setting, I get all the pixelation from the sensor and the other data that Nikon "records" in the resulting file.
It's a good term because I understand what it will do when I select it.
I use Nikon and set my "quality" to "raw". That's what it says in my viewfinder. I didn't pick the term, I just use it. Do I understand it. Yes.
I know when I select the "raw" setting, I get all the pixelation from the sensor and the other data that Nikon "records" in the resulting file.
It's a good term because I understand what it will do when I select it.
Much ado about nothing!!! Who cares what you call it??? I always shoot RAW and I really don't care if you call it an image or a file. When I preview it in Bridge or Windows Explorer I see an image.
Apr 19, 2015 09:09:47 #
jerryc41 wrote:
When this thread starts to fizzle out, we can start discussing why RAW is often capitalized. It's not an acronym, like NEF.
I've always wondered the same thing. We use the term RAW, capitalized, but .jpeg, .tiff, etc., not capitalized.
Apr 19, 2015 09:19:26 #
ldhflyguy
Loc: near Chicago
I've read everything up to here.
It's making my head hurt. :-)
Here is my thought on the matter:
RAW / raw is whatever comes out of a manufacturer's camera.... if it has not already been converted to one of the other formats such as JPEG, TIFF, etc. ?
It's making my head hurt. :-)
Here is my thought on the matter:
RAW / raw is whatever comes out of a manufacturer's camera.... if it has not already been converted to one of the other formats such as JPEG, TIFF, etc. ?
Apr 19, 2015 09:20:30 #
B-n-L
Loc: Nevada
ivanj wrote:
How about this:
When you shoot a picture a "RAW file" is stored in the camera and perhaps transferred to a computer. When you look at the RAW file on the camera screen or computer, you are looking at a "RAW image." When you use post-processing you are manipulating the bits in the RAW file.
The same parlance would hold true for "JPEG", yes?
When you shoot a picture a "RAW file" is stored in the camera and perhaps transferred to a computer. When you look at the RAW file on the camera screen or computer, you are looking at a "RAW image." When you use post-processing you are manipulating the bits in the RAW file.
The same parlance would hold true for "JPEG", yes?
You would be correct. The OP is worried about semantics but doesn't apply the same logic and terminology to all verbage. Both RAW and JPEG, are files, electronically converted to images via computer programming for viewing
Apr 19, 2015 09:25:38 #
Nikonhermit
Loc: In This Place
jerryc41 wrote:
When this thread starts to fizzle out, we can start discussing why RAW is often capitalized. It's not an acronym, like NEF.
It's too late for that now. It's become established usage, just like "laying," as in "I was just laying in the grass when I was struck by lightning." Speaking of which, have you noticed that photo books are often advertised as having a "lay-flat" binding, not a "lie flat?"
Apr 19, 2015 09:34:51 #
Apr 19, 2015 09:39:56 #
B-n-L wrote:
You would be correct. The OP is worried about semantics but doesn't apply the same logic and terminology to all verbage. Both RAW and JPEG, are files, electronically converted to images via computer programming for viewing
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Apr 19, 2015 09:51:05 #
bdo wrote:
...
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.
...
But 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.
...
But there is no such thing as a "RAW image".
I guess I've been under the wrong understanding for a number of decades. I always thought any digital file was just a string of ones and zeros, and the difference between a .jpg and a .raw was a matter of size and how the computer interpreted the information to produce something to show on the monitor.
If the .raw file cannot produce an image what do we see to PP it? If it can produce an image, why isn't it an image file?
Apr 19, 2015 10:24:42 #
rhadams824
Loc: Arkansas
neilds37 wrote:
I guess I've been under the wrong understanding for a number of decades. I always thought any digital file was just a string of ones and zeros, and the difference between a .jpg and a .raw was a matter of size and how the computer interpreted the information to produce something to show on the monitor.
If the .raw file cannot produce an image what do we see to PP it? If it can produce an image, why isn't it an image file?
If the .raw file cannot produce an image what do we see to PP it? If it can produce an image, why isn't it an image file?
As a non-technical newbie I have read some of the 75+ post about raw I found when I used the search function on UHH. I really don't care what it is called. What we newbies want to know is how much improvement can we achieve in our images if we edit and convert raw files to an image? This takes a lot of time and effort. Its worth depends on the quality desired or needed.
I would like to see a short, clear, concise, discussion on the merits of shooting in raw, examples of better results using edited raw and some really usable information that makes sense.
I bought a Olympus TG-3 late last year and it shoots only JPEGs. Now the new Olympus TG-4 boasts RAW shooting as well as JPEG. I don't think that a raw file from this sensor will be as good as a raw file from my Sony A57 so just how much improvement would I achieve if I spend another $400 for raw capture with the TG-3. I am contacting Olympus and asking why can't a software fix add it to my TG-3. It seems silly to come out with raw a year later on the same camera. But this is a different subject that just shooting in raw and its benefits.
Apr 19, 2015 10:28:54 #
STOP everyone!! This is not school. We all know what we are referring to when we talk to other photographers. Getting picky only diverts attention away from the topic. Who really wants to be called out for some silly expression that everyone knows, yet accepts. We photographers are here to help, share, & learn from each other. let us all stay on topic. OK!
Apr 19, 2015 10:49:32 #
You all have way too much time on your hands. Go take a Picture....... LOL
Apr 19, 2015 11:00:00 #
Apr 19, 2015 11:00:57 #
B-n-L
Loc: Nevada
canon Lee wrote:
STOP everyone!! This is not school. We all know what we are referring to when we talk to other photographers. Getting picky only diverts attention away from the topic. Who really wants to be called out for some silly expression that everyone knows, yet accepts. We photographers are here to help, share, & learn from each other. let us all stay on topic. OK!
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.