Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

That is not the case. JPEG and TIFF are both bitmap image formats. When the file is read into memory and uncompressed the data is a three channel RGB encoded image. It specifically defines exactly one image with set colors, contrast, saturation, brightness and so on. RGB data is what your monitor needs, it is also what a printer needs.

None of that is true with RAW files. When read into memory and uncompressed the data is raw sensor data. It is not a bitmapped image. No specific color is defined, much less any of the other parameters listed. The pixel values for an image have to be interpolated from sensor data. There is no one correct specific image, and instead there is very correctly nearly an infinite number of images to choose from at the whim of the user. You do it and see one image, I do it and see a different image!

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

blackest is correct.

When you view an image from a raw file using any raw converter program (Capture One, Adobe Photoshop, etc.) there is absolutely no JPEG present. You are looking at a raster image. As you adjust the raster image to change the highlights, shadows, colors, etc., there is still no JPEG, TIFF or anything else. The raster image comes directly from the raw file and the settings you have used to modify its appearance.

The JPEG, TIFF, etc., do not exist until you save or export your chosen end point.

As I have explained elsewhere, you can't look at a JPEG, TIFF, PNG, etc., either. They all have to be converted to a raster image by the appropriate program.

Try opening a JPEG using Notepad. All you will see of the image is a bunch of ASCII characters. Open it with a binary editor and all you will see are ones and zeros or hex characters. It's only data until it gets converted to a raster image.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

You are both right and wrong...

When you 'open' a raw for viewing you open the embedded JPG. (Then you can see a MODIFIED raw capture)
When you open a raw capture for edit, you open the raw itself with the editable defaults created from the exif recorded. These exif defaults are fully editable once open.

The whale states wrongly that only RGB is used. This is untrue. Opening a raw for edit opens RGB-G then translates into a simpler RGB image. Note that the color space is not set in a raw so you can open a raw file in any color space that your editor allows AFTER using the Bayer model (RGB-G) to decode the raw.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Damn! You actually have a better grasp of the concept than Apaflo!

What does that tell you, Floyd? Are you embarrassed?

blackest Loc: Ireland

kind off if we both use the manufacturers software we would see close to the same image, is it the right image if there is such a thing? I said close since what we see is hardware and profile dependent. Third party raw processors will not necessarily produce the same image from the raw file as canon would or nikon. Lightroom for example gives you adobes profile or the embedded profile. However isn't that pretty much the same as opening a doc file in different office programs. To make things a little worse that doc file can look a little different in different versions of Microsoft office and they should have a perfect handle on the file format!

However if we use the same software it would be the same image we see, different software different but similar versions. So yes it is fair to say we can be looking at slightly different images if we use different software and hardware. However even being different they are still images.

how about color and tone fidelity? say we take a photo of a color calibration chart would our program for opening raw files show us the correct colors? Probably not there would need to be some adjustments, because the raw file is not the finished image it is a digital negative, the latent print perhaps.

It's really not so important these differences, the definition of photography is painting with light what we produce is a representation of what we saw. It is never going to be identical, it doesn't need to be for most purposes. Its not like we produce paint in a factory where each can should be the same as the next can.

A raw file is as close to what was recorded by the sensor that we can get. It gives us the greatest freedom to interpret that recording more so then a jpeg which is designed to be the final version that may or may not become a print which is another interpretation. Editing a jpeg might be comparable to buying a painting and then getting your paint brushes out and painting on top...

Anyway a raw file has an image within it subject to a certain amount of interpretation by the software used to open it, more importantly raw gives us the greatest flexibility in how we interpret a scene more so than a jpeg. Thats what makes it your photo or my photo not nikons photo or canons photo. They provide the science, we provide the art.

The biggest part of what we do comes when we press the shutter release if we get the capture wrong then the rest of the process is pointless.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Nobody knows more than Apaflo.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Not quite correct.

Apaflo is never wrong.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Of all these responses, this one is the most incorrect.

JPEG, TIFF, and PNG are all "raster" images, and do not need to be converted. Another term for the same thing is bitmap. Examples of data that does have to be rasterized would be PostScript or PCL output, a PDF file, or a text file.

You can't display a JPEG with something like Notepad because JPEG already is a bitmap and Notepad is a program that converts non-raster data to raster data for display.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Don't miss the point that these very different results are just as correct as what Nikon or Canon software will produce. The data simply does not specify any one image!

That is very different than a JPEG or a TIFF image. Every software plus display combination is supposed to show exactly the same thing to the degree they can. Any differences are errors. The data specifies exactly one and only one image.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Not so fast. If that were the case you could only display a JPEG or TIFF at 100% resolution.

A JPEG, TIFF, etc., is only the source for building a raster image. The only difference is that the raw conversion step has already been done.

A raw file is also a source from which a raster image can be directly built without going through the JPEG, TIFF, etc., stage. It's just a little more work because the raw conversion to RGB has to be done.

Keep in mind that there is no JPEG or TIFF needed to display the iive raster image on the back of a mirror-less camera or on a DSLR with Live View or equivalent, including the viewing real-time of an image on your PC while tethered or during the initial edit session.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Please look up what raster data is. JPEG, TIFF, etc are raster data. Not a source for building it.

There is no point to the non sequitur comment you repeatedly make about not needing a JPEG to display an image from a RAW file. Nobody claims otherwise. What is needed is an RGB encoded bitmap. A JPEG is just one of several common ways to store an RGB encoded bitmap as a disk file. A JPEG is only needed if a universal and small disk file is wanted. But that has nothing at all to do with this discussion of exactly what raw sensor data is and is not.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I know you like to split hairs over semantics but neither can you see any kind of raster data without a program and a display medium. Once you can actually see it you are looking at a raster image. Prior to that, all forms from which the raster image can be created (raw, JPEG, TIFF, GIF, bitmap. ...) are still data waiting to be rasterized and displayed.

If you really want to learn the difference, take a look at VECTOR, RASTER, JPG, EPS, PNG – WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? You will learn that, "Because raster images are constructed using a fixed number of colored pixels, they can’t be dramatically resized without compromising their resolution. When stretched to fit a space they weren’t designed to fill, their pixels become visibly grainy and the image distorts. This is why altered photos may appear pixilated or low resolution. Therefore, it is important that you save raster files at precisely the dimensions needed to eliminate possible complications."

In much of the literature (even in the cited article) the terms "raster image" and "raster data" are often used interchangeably so it really is of little significance.

I will not pursue this issue with you any further since you finally have conceded that you can go directly from raw to raster image without passing through a JPEG or TIFF stage.

In other words you must display a raster image at 100%, as I already said. To zoom in or out on your on your camera's LCD or on your computer screen or to make a print, the raster image needs to be rebuilt.

blackest Loc: Ireland

It does not matter, there is no correct!
Light passes through a lens what you see through that lens depends o its characteristics the depth of field the position of things within the image the relative size of different features. What you record resembles reality but it isn't. If you take a photo of the sun and you print it are you blinded when you look at the print?

https://www.facebook.com/721174541353330/videos/837222493081867/

Have a look at the video on this page, actually I recommend this one for everybody.
The images in the video are they real? correct?

Here's a couple of photo's of mine are they reality? correct? accurate? It doesn't matter does it? I painted with light from the raw files.

Valley of the kings Luxor

(Download)

Trailer

(Download)

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Your cite says exactly nothing about that. See these Wikipedia pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raster_graphics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasterisation

Why don't you read the things you cite? Read for detail, not just to find something that seems to agree with you.

"JPEGs, GIFs and PNGs are common raster image types."

Your cite just simply denies everything you are saying. All data in a JPEG or TIFF image format is raster data.

That is totally a non sequitur for this discussion. Is anyone denying that raster image data is typically re-sampled for each specific display size??? Why are you arguing these Straw Man issues? Beat the heck out of the straw! Nobody cares... It isn't in contention.


Nobody has ever said otherwise. It's just your non sequitur man made of straw.
We re-sample raster data on a regular basis. Every image we look at in an image editor (all photo editors use raster data), every image we see on the web, etc etc, has been re-sampled for viewing. So what? That has nothing to do with the difference between raw sensor data and RGB encoded image data.

Go argue how tall a flag pole has to be! Make yourself useful...

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The step from raw data with separate colors at each site to RGB data with three colors in each pixel is a trivial operation - a log conversion and a quick combining of a 2x2 matrix of sensels.

Now don't start arguing that there are more than 4 sensels involved. Even with 4 there has already been a slight loss of resolution so any additional sensels will contribute less and less color information to the pixel in question. Regardless, all of this can take place without having to stop off and create a JPEG or TIFF.

There is no point in arguing with you if you pretend you didn't say something that was wrong. You are incapable of admitting that you were wrong, ever, but we all know that you can be wrong, often.

So I'll just leave it there.