hfb Loc: Northwestern Louisiana

If you took a current Model DSLR went manual on all possible settings and shot a Picture. Then downloaded and Printed it. What would it look like? My only Digital Camera is a Powershot A2000IS. I can't find a RAW anywhere in the manual to try for myself. I expect RAW is the unadulterated Image. How close would it be expected to be to a Film version of the same thing?

Gramps Loc: Republic of Tejas--Tomball, TX

What do you care? Is the product, you just produced, after you puter it and monitor it to your liking? In my finite estimation RAW is like attempting to play a violin with boxing gloves! Expect paragraphs from the PS, N/C cultists on how I am full of, well you know, enjoy and don't sweat the little things!.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

You may find it more helpful to think in terms of a RAW file as oppose to a RAW image. A RAW file has all (100%) of the data collected by the camera when the image was shot. The RAW file must be processed in some fashion to be printed, most use JPEG or TIFF. The RAW file is the closest thing the digital world has to the negative in the film world. One big advantage to the RAW file is that you can manipulate it in many ways and save many versions of the same image. Once you save your manipulated version you still have the original to use again and again. Keep in mind that when you convert the RAW image to a JPEG even a big JPEG you still lose a massive amount of data. The largest JPEG image is somewhere in the 25MP range whereas the average RAW file is in the 70MP range. You can do a search of this subject here on UHH and fine boatloads of information. By the way welcome to UHH.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Assuming correct ISO, aperture, and shutter duration: contrast low, color saturation low, exposure maybe just slightly off.

With post processing, one can tweak exposure, contrast, color saturation, sharpness, level horizon, and cropping, then save as a new JPG.

hfb Loc: Northwestern Louisiana

You have your own language here and in time I will learn to speak it. I am a retired EE engineer and took a very active part in the Digital Display Revolution. I got the answer I was looking for. I am hearing, I think, that not a lot of processing has to be done by the camera and can be limited by the user. My little Powershot is used for making reference images not art so what ever is camera controlled is fine with me.
I have refurbished a canon AE-1 and purchased some Mamiya 645 gear ,Also refurbished, to actually use for Photography. I am really puzzled about the carry over of ISO from Film to Digital. I understand sensor noise levels and gain. It just looks like there is a better way to define the problem and the solution. Just a Low noise, mid noise, and high noise or low gain, mid gain,and high gain would be a better definition of the situation.
There is one thing that I could not understand. Why would digital need a better lens than Film? Does't Film still have the edge on resolution and greyshade response? What is the in production state of the art for ccd's? If that is still the sensor technology. One last question, How many pixels does a full frame 35mm sensor have?

EliEliHo Loc: Des Moines, Iowa

Not trying to high jack the thred, however, not being well versed in computers and and new to photography. How do I change raw to jpeg and how do I save the raw and jpeg files separatly?
Eli

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

What camera?

birdpix Loc: South East Pennsylvania

"There is one thing that I could not understand. Why would digital need a better lens than Film? Does't Film still have the edge on resolution and greyshade response? What is the in production state of the art for ccd's? If that is still the sensor technology. One last question, How many pixels does a full frame 35mm sensor have?[/quote]"

I'm not sure that digital needs better lenses than film but lenses have gotten better, especially in the coatings that reduce relfections and flare. My sense is that black and white film still has an edge on resolution and dynamic range. Color film I think does not have the dynamic range of todays sensors. Most cameras have gone to CMOS (complementary-symmetry metal–oxide–semiconductor ) sensors rather than CCD. They have advantages in noise control and energy comsumption. Full frame 35 mm sensors now have between 10 and 36 mega pixels.

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

Who wants to start a new forum section on RAW vs. JPG metaphors? I see at least 5 per day, and I'm sure I miss many more.

EliEliHo Loc: Des Moines, Iowa

I am useing a Nikon D-3000. My question should have asked, how do I convert from raw to jpeg, once I have shot the raw pic?
Eli

EliEliHo Loc: Des Moines, Iowa

Count me in!
Eli

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Many, if not most, post processing programs will convert native raw to JPG. Your D3000 captures .NEF, which is the Nikon Electronic File (native raw) format. Same as both my D5000 & D90.

I use free Picasa 3.9 for all of my basic processing of my raw images. I save edits as JPGs. I tweak my raw in Picasa in this order: exposure, contrast, color saturation, sharpening, horizon leveling, cropping. http://picasa.google.com

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Right on!!! Totally agree with you!!