rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

That is correct. The importance of this concept is illustrated by the Original Post. One of the files posted was of the form *.ORF - which is apparently a proprientary Olympus format; the Shotwell program which was preinstalled on my Linux computer seems to know how to interpret it, but if I had a Win computer with programs normally installed on it, I doubt if I could look at it. This is not an isolated instance; often someone will post a "RAW" file, assuming that everyone here can view it as routinely as we view JPEG, GIF, PNG and TIFF files - we need to understand that a 'raw' file is normally a proprietary format, and the usual expectation is that the artist will adjust/modify it before releasing a something that is to be viewed generally. Showing a 'raw' file is conceptually similar to showing a negative instead of a print or slide {if s/he intended to use the image as rendered automatically by software such as Shotwell, then s/he might as well use the JPEG produced by the camera}

dwermske

So RAW files ARE image files. They are just proprietary to the manufacturer. They are still image files even though not everyone may have the software to view them. An image file is a file that can be used to create an image regardless of the format (standardized or proprietary) as long as I have the correct software to decode it. Seems that I was right all along.

blackest Loc: Ireland

Kinda, without processing a raw file is kinda gray lacking in contrast or sharpness. If we shoot color film for example then arguably the negative is an image, but until its used to create a print you are hard pressed to be able to envisage what the print will look like.
Even giving you the negative to make your own print a 6x4 is going to be different to a 10x8 or a 7x5. if I give you a 7x5 print then you are seeing what i intend you to see.

For a jpeg the result is determined each pixel has a value and thats whats you are going to see. A raw file depends on which software you use as to how it eventually looks.

Its kind of the difference between a plot outline and a book. Or perhaps the difference between a stage play and a movie.
Lets say we take romeo and juliet as an example. As a movie playing at a theatre or even a DVD or blueray at home each time you watch it, you see the same scenes lit the same, the same delivery of the characters lines. Only the location , who is with you when you watch it changes. Nothings going to change between viewings. Thats pretty much the finished production.

On the other hand if you see it as a stage play then even with the same cast and set, there will be differences between shows. If you go to a different theatre the roles are the same but your experience of the play will be different again. Even with the same source material.

The embedded jpeg in a raw file only shows one potential outcome of processing that raw file. How you process a raw file can change how that image is perceived. You start the creative process in camera and you finish it when you want to finish it. Within this thread are a number of versions of the OPs image largely similar but put side by side you will probably consider some versions better than others.

If i give a jpeg to bob and mary they will pretty much see the same image, giving bob and mary the raw file they will make editing choices in order to see that image and if bob and mary compare the results they will not be the same.

Does that make sense now? can you see how there is a difference.
When you are given a jpeg there is an expectation that when you view that jpeg you see what the creator of that jpeg wants you to see.
With the raw file you are at liberty to interpret that data as you see fit.

BebuLamar

Yes you are right!
JPEG, TIFF etc.. are images because each pixel has exactly 3 values and these values are fixed.
The RAW files whether it's NEF, DNG, CR2 etc.. each pixel has only 1 value. The demosaic algorithm using this value along with values from the adjacent pixels to create 3 values for each pixel. However, when dong the conversion depending on the white balance, exposure comp, contrast, saturation etc.. setting it will render the pixels with different values. That is why the RAW it's not an image file because you have many way to present it.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Interesting spin. I go back to using both MS-word and WordPerfect. There files were different and were difficult and tricky to convert from one to another. And things got harder the more fancy formatting and features were included in your documents. Though if you saved with either program with the simplified Text extension .txt those document files were nearly identical and interchangeable. Special enclosed items like tables and photo or graphic images were usually lost when converting from WP to Word or Word to WP. Interchanging MS-Word and WordPerfect documents got either with later version of the programs since the days of MS-Word 6 and WordPerfect 6 for Windows. Today MS-Office Word dominates the market over WP. Today I no longer have any version of WP on my Windows 10 PC. My version of MS-Office 365 keeps MS-Word up to date. Yes, TXT files are a standard between WP, Word, and other word processors. But not their native formats.

bleirer

As has been said, you have to dig into how a camera makes the file. Raw files do not map out the exact value for each pixel in the final displayed image the way jpeg and tiff and png do. I think these are all in the category of bit mapped image files, so none of the raw files are that. When the exposure is made the photons hitting the sensor at either a red or blue or green pixel turn the light into electricity and the camera software turns the electricity at that pixel into a number. The raw file is a record of all those numbers and also of all the camera settings at the time of the picure. If you directly viewed that info, it would be only red or blue or green dots of different brightnesses.

dwermske

I understand that the file structures are different. I understand that RAW files have a proprietary format. I understand that a RAW file can be manipulated in many ways. So can all these other formats but not to the same extent. So what if the file formats are very different, or if they are recorded in very different ways. That is irrelevant. RAW files can be displayed and printed without any modifications if they are exposed correctly in the first place just like non RAW files. The fact that they have to go through an extra conversion process first is also irrelevant. The fact still remains that RAW files are used to produce images. By your definition, only data that is formatted into a standardized image format can be considered an image file. Any file that can be manipulated, whether through a standard or a proprietary set of rules and the outcome is an image, that file is an image file. Every one seems to fixitated on how a file is created or how a file is manipulated with total disregard to the fact that an image can be created from it. The process of getting from raw data to an image is irrelevant. The fact that going from RAW data to an image can be done is relevant and makes proprietary RAW files image files.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Apparently you are one of those who is determined to be right.
I dub thee "right".

srt101fan

Semantics.....

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

There was a time when operating systems did not have the capability to display JPEG files built in.



Software is needed to render any image file.



It is easy to change the "open with" options as well as to customize icons.

Mike

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

That is how I see it, but there sure is a lot of vehement resistance to what you are saying.

It would not much matter except for the fact that many people are steered away from working with raw files by these ideas that people are so fixated on - that raw files are not image files, that they cannot be viewed, that they need extensive and time consuming "processing" or some high level of esoteric skills. I often see people say "using raw files is for when you want to spend a lot of time in post processing." None of that is true in my direct personal daily experience.

My hunch is that the introduction of raw files, being proprietary, caught software companies, particularly Adobe, flat-footed, so they came up with all of this nonsense about raw files to explain why they were struggling to keep up with the camera manufacturers. People say "raw files will look dull and flat until they are processed." That supports my hunch, I think. No raw file ever looked "dull and flat" to me, nor did it need to be "developed" or "processed." But I don't use Adobe products. As with all files, you need the right program to work with the files. Thew main difference between raw files and say JPEG and TIFF files - in terms of practical application for photographers - is that the raw files are proprietary. Yes, it is true that raw files are not bitmaps - but neither are vector files. But vector files are most definitely image files, as are raw files.

Mike

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

My personal experience is that my Pentax cameras provide JPEG files that require minimal touch up in gimp to provide what I want.

I am told that people who start with ‘raw’ files want to make extensive “improvements” before generating a JPEG. If that is true, I don’t understand why they would want the ‘unwashed’ public to see their ‘raw’ results; if it is not true, I don’t understand why they don’t start with the JPEG.

dwermske

Common sense finally prevails.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

If you are happy, I am happy.

I enjoyed your Cass railroad series, by the way, which I just looked at and hadn't seen before.

Raw files are an important part of how I do things, as are TIFF files and JPEG files. I don't start with JPEG because I have no use for full-sized JPEGs. What would you do with them? The ‘unwashed’ public does see my ‘raw’ results, once resized and converted to the JPEG format. I don't make extensive "improvements" in raw files.

I don't care to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do, but I hate to see people fall into the trap of avoiding working with raw files because they have been given misleading information. I avoided using raw files for the first five years of taking digital images and I really regret that.

I can get better TIFF files for printing or stacking, and better JPEG files for posting online when I start with raw files, and it is faster and easier, too. Better how? They look better - to me - much better, actually, no question. Does that matter to everyone, or does everyone care? No. To a large extent it depends upon what a person is going for.

Mike

dwermske

Look up JPEG any you will see that the file type is a compressed version the original RAW image that was created in the camera. Some of the original data has been removed due to the compression algorithm and can never be recovered. A RAW file has all the image data which can be manipulated or not depending on how any individual photographer wishes to display image. In most cases, the original image data will present an extremely accurate rendering of what the photographer actually saw without any further modifications. This idea that every RAW image has to go through extensive post processing is just BS. If you, the photographer, have done your job correctly in capturing the image it will not need any further post processing. However, with RAW files you have the opportunity to make further changes with ALL the data present rather some version of the image that has had data removed through a baked in process. A RAW file can always be used to create a JPEG file the the reverse is never true. By the way, all camera manufacturers provide software to be able to view and modify their propritary RAW file formatted images.