Getting tired of the 'raw is data; JPG is not.'
Mar 16, 2022 06:21:37 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Folks, both are data, nothing else. Both are processed, one more than the other.
That's it.
That's it.
I would love to see an Abbott and Costello version of that debate. With CGI, anything is possible. Abbott liked JPG, Costello prefers RAW, I think!
Mar 16, 2022 06:49:55 #
Mar 16, 2022 06:59:50 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Rongnongno wrote:
Folks, both are data, nothing else. Both are processed, one more than the other.
That's it.
That's it.
Easier said then done.Mar 16, 2022 07:22:43 #
Both are data, but one is further down the entropy chain. You can make a JPG from a RAW, but you can't make a RAW from a JPG.
Mar 16, 2022 07:32:43 #
Isn’t this a distinction without a difference? When I open either I have on my screen an image which needs more (RAW) or less (JPG) additional processing. Let’s stop beating a dead horse!
R.G. wrote:
A raw file contains sensor data. A jpg file contains image data.
As you point out, they're both data but the jpg data is further along in the process of creating an image. More specifically, a jpg file contains pixel data whereas the data in a raw file has to be rendered in order to get pixel information out of it. Monitors and printers need pixel data in a recognised format such as jpg, tif etc.
As you point out, they're both data but the jpg data is further along in the process of creating an image. More specifically, a jpg file contains pixel data whereas the data in a raw file has to be rendered in order to get pixel information out of it. Monitors and printers need pixel data in a recognised format such as jpg, tif etc.
Mar 16, 2022 07:51:37 #
DeanS wrote:
This reads as it were composed by our esteemed USVP.
You should be admonished for that. I know I would be.
Mar 16, 2022 08:03:08 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Folks, both are data, nothing else. Both are processed, one more than the other.
That's it.
That's it.
In the end, they're both just pictures
Mar 16, 2022 08:04:38 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
wham121736 wrote:
Isn’t this a distinction without a difference? When I open have on my screen an image which needs more (RAW) or less (JPG) additional processing. Let’s stop beating a dead horse!
I have learned over the past 32 years that as a group, photographers tend to be able to understand and handle visceral information better than they can handle technical information. I would offer the general difficulty getting their arms around the elements of proper exposure as just one example. As a result, many "false understandings" have developed, many of which, despite being incorrect all the way to their foundations, have assumed a ststus that I have come to label as "lore." Lore is very powerful. Once established, it is essentially uncorrectable. Sometimes, the death of a generation can lead to its correction. I am coming to the conclusion that the battle is not worth the effort since there is no recognition that there is (or might be) error and that correction might be beneficial. Since there are no life or death outcomes to be based on those outcomes in photography, I've decided that there may be some merit in giving up the battle. The energy can be more productively be devoted to other things.
This discussion actually does have merit, but if everyone's mind is already made up and set in stone, it has no purpose.
Mar 16, 2022 08:14:24 #
Mar 16, 2022 08:14:43 #
wham121736 wrote:
Isn’t this a distinction without a difference? When I open either I have on my screen an image which needs more (RAW) or less (JPG) additional processing. Let’s stop beating a dead horse!
Absolutely not a distinction without a difference! Itvs not that a RAW needs more processing than a JPG, but that a RAW *can* be much more processed than a JPG. Do you think that negative/print is a distinction without a difference?
Mar 16, 2022 08:17:34 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Folks, both are data, nothing else. Both are processed, one more than the other.
That's it.
That's it.
I was convinced that Data was the Lieutenant Commander of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D)
Mar 16, 2022 08:50:24 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Folks, both are data, nothing else. Both are processed, one more than the other.
That's it.
That's it.
Thank you! I always argued that RAW data is not pure "ones and zeroes"; it has to be interpreted by something, in order to see and manipulate it on a Photoshop, Lightroom or Affinity screen. I agree, however, that RAW provides more information to work with in post processing so it's the better format for professionals but for "enthusiasts" like me, JPEGs are usually sufficient to produce the results I seek.
Mar 16, 2022 09:05:03 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Folks, both are data, nothing else. Both are processed, one more than the other.
That's it.
That's it.
Yes! I agree. "Raw is not a picture!" And JPEG is? Both are just a bunch of 1s and 0s. Loading either one onto a computer gives you a picture.
Mar 16, 2022 09:20:42 #
DeanS wrote:
This reads as it were composed by our esteemed USVP.
The word "processed" means different things to different people. In the computer world, "processed" is an appropriate adjective to use if a processor (computer) does anything at all to data even if that processing involves only organization and assembly of the date into a file. This is the kind of processing a camera does for a RAW file.
But in the photography world, "processing" generally implies something more. It's use seems to imply that some enhancement of an image is being done for the purpose of making an image appear better. For a JPEG file the result is further processed to compress the image to make it smaller.
Mar 16, 2022 09:35:58 #
jlg1000 wrote:
I was convinced that Data was the Lieutenant Commander of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D)
And that's the correct answer!!!
Loren - in Beaitiful Baguio City
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.