So now that we are discussing analog vs digital and which pertains to film vs electronic sensors, do we dare bring in the wave-particle duality principle for light? JUST KIDDING!!! It's a minefield that is too far off RAW vs JPEG. :roll: :roll:

I quite agree with you that RAW contains a wealth of information that may be better exploited at some future time when both hardware and software have improved beyond today's limitations. And I agree with you that my referring to RAW as a standard was incorrect, as I have found out from others (thanks, guys).

But I think "displayed image" is highly relevant, as supported by others who have posted comments, to point out that one is not actually looking at a RAW or JPEG file itself, but rather something decoded from those file sources. And recall that the image in front of you will not change when you specify the type of file in which you want to SAVE that image. You can save it as .JPG, then save again as .TIF, etc, but nothing on the screen changes.

In fact, your comment supports the notion of calling what you are seeing on the screen a "displayed image" in that this limited view of the stored data may be improved upon someday to give me a "fully realized image". But that sounds like an absolute that may never be definable or attainable.

Nevertheless, I think perhaps we are actually in agreement.

Well, that's certainly what I was hoping. So far I think the conversation has been informative.

For example, I now understand the subtle distinction between data format and file format; I now appreciate that sensor data is not image data per se; and I will never again call RAW a standard.

I fully get it that some folks are not interested in low level details, and if they refer to the displayed image on their computer screen as a JPEG I can live with that. Similarly, I can overlook F16 vs f/16 for aperture even though the latter is technically correct and makes it clear why f/4 lets more light enter the lens compared to f/11. There are, however, some folks on UHH who present themselves as experts and speak with an air of authority, yet they are clearly wrong in what they are saying, often due to the incorrect use of terminology. The point of this post is to raise awareness about terminology because when taken out of context it could lead to false interpretation.

I consider myself quite knowledgeable in several technical areas, but I am here to learn as well as share, and I really appreciate when someone points out where I am wrong, especially where accuracy in terminology enhances clarity and understanding. I hope at least some others feel similarly and are being helped by this discussion.

Bob, my intent was to have an informative conversation for the benefit of readers, not just me, and the devil is sometimes in the details.

Maybe I am splitting hairs here, but you said that "… the "preview" image is derived from the RAW data the camera collects upon actuation of the shutter. This image is subject to the coding embedded in the camera to translate the RAW data into a preview image. Image editing software has its own translating coding to render the jpg preview image from RAW data." You are implying that previews in-camera are decoded from the RAW data, but I was under the impression that a RAW file has an embedded JPEG (Edit: just saw another post from jcboy3 that confirmed this), and it was that JPEG that gets displayed on the camera display. It does not matter in the end, but I do like to be technically accurate. So, do you know for certain that the camera decodes the RAW for preview?

Going back to your other posts in which you showed a rather off-color image that you PPed to look fantastic ( :thumbup: ) did the display on the camera also look like the greenish posted image (which is a JPEG)?

This post is not about whether to shoot RAW or JPEG. That issue gets beaten to death enough, and it will never be resolved until manufacturers decide not to provide the option in-camera and force users into saving in a single file format.

Rather, it is about clarifying some of the terminology associated with digital photography, primarily for newcomers but also for film-days old timers who have made the transition, so that we might all speak the same language. I am hoping this post will help preclude misunderstandings such as what appeared in a recent thread where a poster thought he was perhaps turning a JPEG into a RAW file because he was able to open and manipulate the image in RAW editing software (LR, if I recall correctly).

To begin let's clarify that RAW and JPEG (along with PNG, TIFF, etc) are storage file standards or specifications that essentially define/describe how the binary pixel brightness data from the sensor are organized in the file, so that an image processor (or printer) can convert that data into something viewable on the computer (or on paper). And since these terms are file specifications, technically the "thing" that one sees on the computer or on paper is neither RAW nor JPEG, nor PNG, nor TIFF, etc.

So my question to the photo or computer technophiles is, "What is the correct term to describe what one is looking at on the computer screen when examining a digital file?" I don't know if there is a specific term, so I will just use the term "image" for the remainder of this post.

I use a Mac, and when I use the Finder to look at my folder contents I see thumbnails of my ".JPG" files but just an icon for the ".ARW" files. I suspect the finder is "too dumb" to extract the JPEG thumbnail from the RAW file. But even lowly software such as Preview will open the RAW file and present me with an image, and I can use the rudimentary editing tools in Preview to make adjustments to the image and save the result as TIFF, PNG, PDF, JPEG etc. While the original RAW file was about 17 MB and the corresponding SOOC JPEG was just over 5 MB, the TIFF is over 128 MB, so clearly the richness of the data varies between file formats. But regardless of what format I save in, I am still seeing the same "image" on my screen.

Of course, more sophisticated editing software will show thumbnails of both file types and will open both for editing. The point I am making is that RAW and JPEG merely identify which file was used as the source of the data that is being displayed as an image on my computer.

Going back to the camera, my Sony has an EVF, so I am seeing a WYSIWYG presentation of what my image might look like on my computer. Of course, I can set the camera to save the data as RAW, JPEG, or both, but what am I really looking at in the EVF or on the rear screen? Am I looking at a visual presentation of the JPEG as it will be stored, or could I be looking at the RAW? If I set the camera to store only RAW, am I really looking at a presentation of the RAW, or am I seeing the JPEG that is automatically embedded in the RAW? I suspect the camera is limited, just like the Finder on my Mac, to dealing only with the smaller JPEG data.

What about cameras that don't use an EVF, but may allow live view as an option and certainly provide in-camera review of the images? I suspect they, too, are just presenting the image as derived either from the JPEG that is embedded in the RAW file or from the JPEG that is specifically designated as a storage format.

In any case, it boils down to understanding that one is never really looking at a RAW or JPEG file directly; rather, the computer or camera is using one of those files as the source of the data to present an image to the user.

So I ask again, is there a technical term other than "displayed image" to describe what one is looking at, or do we just leave it that?

JF

Alan, I love reading your posts. They are polite, unassuming, informative, clearly presented and technically accurate.

The only point I would comment on is the excerpt above taken from your mini-treatise.

Perhaps one of the reasons manufacturers make ILCs across a range of price points is that it broadens their base of buyers well beyond the pro market. I suspect a significant proportion of SLR/one-lens users buy into the option of expanding their system down the road, a dream that may go unfulfilled for many. Then there are those who buy mid-to-higher end SLRs as a status symbol, with no desire to ever get serious enough about photography to buy extra lenses. Some may want features that are not be available in a P&S form factor but are available in an SLR body. And some just like the option of choosing which one lens they want on that body at time of purchase. Ultimately, all of these folks are either satisfied, or make do, with just one lens. And the big winner is…. the manufacturer.

On the other side of the coin we have folks who have an ILC and a collection of lenses but they choose not to use them for some reason(s). In my case I bought Sony because I already had several older Minolta lenses from my film days that I thought would be useful on a new digital body. I carry them everywhere in my kit bag, but I must admit I hardly ever use them. I fully appreciate that my 18-250 mm is not as good quality as a collection of 2 or 3 shorter range zooms that collectively cover the same range, and I know all the arguments about using primes and zooming with your feet. But with that one lens on the body I have a lot more flexibility in framing from a single location, and I don't miss a photo due to the time it takes to change lenses.

Also, in the days of film, changing lenses was not as risky as it is with digital regarding dust getting onto the sensor. Film effectively gave you a brand new sensor for each shot, and that pristine sensor was exposed to the potentially dusty mirror box only for the duration of the shutter curtain travel time. Yes, I know not to change lenses in unprotected dusty/windy/rainy conditions; I know to point the camera and back of the lens down when exposed for any length of time; I know that sensors can be cleaned, and probably should be cleaned periodically; and I know that there are kits for doing this yourself if cost is an issue. But I probably change lenses less often than I should/could to minimize this problem.

So I am a user who has an ILC and has more than one do-it-all lens. My wife and I do travel writing and photography, and the reality is that more professional looking kit opens more doors. I also frequently utilize several features on my camera body that are not available on many P&S cameras. But in practice my 18-250 mm zoom fills most of my needs, whereas a P&S would not.

"Is the the best you can do?"… he said, green with envy!!!

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Dave to PP-zealot: "Here, hold on to this end of the chain while I pull slowly and gently on the other end."

Or…

Dave with sharp stick in hand to PP-zealot: "Take that, you …"

Or is Dave using a baseball bat to beat a hornet's nest again?

To the OP, if I take your words literally, I would say that when you edit in the camera you are, in fact, "getting it right" in the camera, so it would actually make the point about getting it right in the camera HIGHLY RELEVANT. But I know that is not what you really meant. ;-)

In 10 pages of posts we have had comments from photographers spanning the entire spectrum of PP that ranges from

get it right in the camera and no PP permitted… to

get it as good as possible in the camera so that you only have to do minimal PP… to

get it close enough in the camera and do as much PP as necessary… to

who cares what we get in camera, let's just "create" an image with PP.

Actually, I don't think anyone from the PP camp has really been as dismissive as the last category. And no one has yet said

intentionally take the worst possible exposure and then PP the heck out of it to recover a [barely?] presentable final product.

In the end the final product, whatever that may be, depends on the whim of the photographer. Taking the position that "anything can be improved upon" one could argue that any image, SOOC or heavily PPed, can still be improved upon with more, or perhaps less, PP… at least in someone's opinion.

So going back to the OP's question on whether getting it right in the camera is still relevant, I would submit that this entire subject is IRRELEVANT. If you are happy with SOOC (and that could even be an image taken in full AUTO mode!!!), fill your boots and don't feel you are not up to standards; if you like adjusting/tweaking/correcting/modifying/filtering or even pixel painting then you can fill your boots, too. To each his own.

This reminds me of a joke…


A farmer got pulled over by a state trooper for speeding, and the trooper started to lecture the farmer about his speed, and in general began to throw his weight around to try to make the farmer uncomfortable.

Finally, the trooper got around to writing out the ticket, and as he was doing that he kept swatting at some flies that were buzzing around his head.

The farmer said, "Having some problems with circle flies there, are ya?"

The trooper stopped writing the ticket and said: "Well yeah, if that's what they are — I never heard of circle flies."

So the farmer says, "Well, circle flies are common on farms. See, they're called circle flies because they're almost always found circling around the back end of a horse."

The trooper says, "Oh," and goes back to writing the ticket. Then after a minute he stops and says, "Hey ... wait a minute, are you trying to call me a horse's ass?"

The farmer says, "Oh no, officer. I have too much respect for law enforcement and police officers to even think about calling you a horse's ass."

The trooper says, "Well, that's a good thing," and goes back to writing the ticket.

After a long pause, the farmer says, "Hard to fool them flies though."

Given that this was a movie stunt it was probably the part of the protective clothing ensemble covering the family jewels.

You're kidding, right? I thought I was demonstrating the virtues of the zoom-in, not zoom-out.

Bob, I agree that it is possible to wade through posts that are not written in perfect prose. And I don't/won't point out every mistake that I see. It was the put-down of someone who did point out spelling errors that got me primed (I, in fact, gave the correcting poster 2 thumbs up), and it was your words "… compulsive desire to enforce some arbitrary rules that have no bearing on communicating ideas…" that blew my fuse. As stated in my rant, I believe proper spelling and grammar have a very strong bearing on communication, to the extent that poor writing can undermine the credibility of the author. I get especially irked when the person slamming someone for being a grammar policeman is one of the biggest offenders, so to speak.

Sorry it was you I hit on, and I'm glad to see that we are probably on the same page, really.

J

Yes, Bob, the rules of spelling and grammar are arbitrary. They are, in fact, as arbitrary as the units of length, mass, time, etc, which ensure that we understand our physical world; they are as arbitrary as the standards for RAW, JPEG, PNG, TIFF, HTTP, etc, which ensure that we can communicate in cyberspace as we are now; they are as arbitrary as the rules of the road which are enforced to avoid dire consequences. Arbitrary has nothing to do with it.

But agreement on, and adherence to, a common set of rules for spelling and grammar has EVERYTHING to do with how we communicate with others. Like it or not, the rules have been agreed to, taught and implemented for centuries. Based on those rules there are "rights" and "wrongs" that are NOT subject to interpretation; they are not the whimsical result of a compulsive desire. Meanings and intent, or mis-intent, in communication are conveyed by proper use, or misuse, of those rules.

There is room for bending and even breaking the rules of spelling and grammar to creatively make a point; just be careful what point you are making. When a photographer presents a photo in which a person's skin is turned green for whatever reason you form an impression not only of the image, but also of the photographer. When a writer's words on the page are misspelled, run together or garbled so much that the reader has to struggle, then the message has probably missed its target; concomitantly those words create an impression of the writer in the reader's mind.

Incidentally, in your comment you should have:
a) put a comma after "me", although that is optional;
b) spelled "other's" which is singular-posessive as "others'" which is the correct plural-posessive; and
c) removed the comma after "spelling".

I guess I am now a member of the Grammar Police on UHH. I feel honored.

Getting onto my hobby-horse of not deleting any images, maybe Ansel is referring to "printing" 12 good images a year. From an article about Moonrise I got the impression that he reworked that negative many times over many years, so it appears he held on to it for a long time. I wonder if he ever destroyed a negative.