Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?

wrote:
I am sorry if this topic may have been discussed too many times.
However, I still have difficulties dealing with the concept of RAW
files. Someone suggested that RAW files are like negatives, while-as
JPEG files are like prints.
To some extent that is kinda true.
My question is whether we can physically see a RAW file... I mean
without placing it in the mercy of a software to open it as a JPEG
file (and in the mean time, the software is doing the processing and
converting it into JPEG using their own algorithm to produce what they
consider to be the best JPEG. I agree that perhaps people should
create both RAW and JPEG files when they take pictures.
Can you physically see a JPG file? When you look at a memory
card, CD, hard drive etc do you see the photo?
Whatever format a digital file is in, you need to do some
processing on it to convert it to a format you can see.
There are a couple of key differences between RAW & JPG -
Firstly, JPG is a standard. The standard specifies how the
data in the file is used to make the final photo. So with a
particular set of data, there is 1 way to turn it into a photo.

RAW (with the exception of the rarely used DNG format) is
not a standard. Each manufacturer has their own way of
laying out the data. Furthermore, each model has its own way
of laying out the data. Instead of the data being set down
in a standardised manner, it is very specific to the way
that particular make and model works.

Because JPG is a standard, you find that almost every piece
of software ever written that deals with image data can deal
with JPG images - including the kiosk software that modern
digital photo labs use.

RAW on the other hand requires specific decoders. If someone
wants to put RAW support in their program, they first need
to know the details of how the particular camera stores its
raw files. This information is sometimes not freely
available, so they need to pay license fees, sign NDA's etc.
When a new camera comes out they need to update their
software to support the new camera.

The other thing with RAW is what it stores. Once a JPG is
decompressed, it contains information that specifies the
exact RGB value that every pixel in the resulting image has.
RAW on the other hand contains the readout data from each
sensor element. Since each sensor element is either Red,
Green or Blue, a raw file only has one value for each
element, not the full RGB value. To get an RGB value to
display for viewing, it must take that value, and combine it
with the data from its neighbours to get a full colour
value. The proportions of the neighbours values, how many
neighbours etc that get used to make the final value will
depend on various parameters such as sharpness, contrast,
brightness, saturation, white-balance etc. The values of
these settings that were selected at the time of shooting
are stored in the raw file, but can be over-ridden. Likewise
there is no one right algorithm. Different algorithms will
yield different results - some may result in images with
slightly less detail but lower noise, or vice-versa, other
algorithms may give more accurate colour reproduction, etc.

As a result of these differences, there are comparatively
very few programs around that can view/print/edit a RAW
file, but they do exist. Theoretically it isn't entirely
necessary to convert to JPG/TIFF etc first, although in
practice that's how most tools work, because by converting
the image to one of the standard formats it then allows
greater flexibility.

As for shooting RAW+JPG, this offers the advantage that you
can preview/edit/print the JPG image using commonly
available software. The camera produces a usable JPG at
shooting time, so in many cases there is no need to
post-process. Browsing/viewing JPGs is also faster than
opening them in a RAW converter so it makes it much quicker
to go through and identify the "keepers". Then if you
ascertain that the image is good, you can then use the RAW
to tweak any settings that may not be quite 100% perfect.


The next question is whether commercial photo processing softwares
(Photoshop, Paintshop, Aperture, etc) treating RAW files produced from
different brand cameras differently, as I noticed that the extension
file name for RAW files differ from cameras to cameras. Can the
special software made by the camera's manufacturer (which sometimes
comes with the camera that you purchase) do a better job than the
commercially photo processing softwares?
Yes the various programs can and in most cases do, process
differently to the in-camera convertor or the brand-name
software. Whether they do it better is a matter for debate
and personal taste. Pentax cameras for example are
frequently criticised for having soft in-camera JPGs.
Converting the RAW image with Adobe will overcome this
problem to create a very different image to what the
in-camera or Pentax branded software will produce.

I recall that someone mentioned that the camera's processing engine is
not as versatile as a computer's photo processing software, as well as
the time to produce the JPEG file in the camera is relatively short.
Therefore, built-in camera processing engine cannot make a better job
than a real photo processing software. As processing speed is getting
faster and faster, could a camera sometime in the future produces JPEG
photos which are as good as or better than the commercial photo
softwares?
The main difference is that in-camera does the conversion
based on settings made before you take the photo. When you
get the image to the computer, you can choose the conversion
settings in retrospect, which means you can choose the ideal
settings for the actual image, rather than settings for how
you anticipate the image. In many cases the computer based
software (especially the software that ships with the
camera) has basically the same options that the in-camera
system has, however because you are doing it after-the-fact
you can make better choices.

Thanks for the discussions


--
Don't blame me - I didn't vote for Kevin Rudd or Anna Bligh!

In article
, Doug
Jewell wrote:

RAW (with the exception of the rarely used DNG format) is
not a standard. Each manufacturer has their own way of
laying out the data. Furthermore, each model has its own way
of laying out the data. Instead of the data being set down
in a standardised manner, it is very specific to the way
that particular make and model works.

dng is not all that rare and several cameras output it directly. also
the structure of a raw file is mostly standard, it's the contents that
vary with every camera since every camera is a little different (or a
lot different).

Because JPG is a standard, you find that almost every piece
of software ever written that deals with image data can deal
with JPG images - including the kiosk software that modern
digital photo labs use.

yep

RAW on the other hand requires specific decoders. If someone
wants to put RAW support in their program, they first need
to know the details of how the particular camera stores its
raw files. This information is sometimes not freely
available, so they need to pay license fees, sign NDA's etc.
When a new camera comes out they need to update their
software to support the new camera.

or just let the operating system handle it.

The other thing with RAW is what it stores. Once a JPG is
decompressed, it contains information that specifies the
exact RGB value that every pixel in the resulting image has.
RAW on the other hand contains the readout data from each
sensor element. Since each sensor element is either Red,
Green or Blue, a raw file only has one value for each
element, not the full RGB value. To get an RGB value to
display for viewing, it must take that value, and combine it
with the data from its neighbours to get a full colour
value. The proportions of the neighbours values, how many
neighbours etc that get used to make the final value will
depend on various parameters such as sharpness, contrast,
brightness, saturation, white-balance etc. The values of
these settings that were selected at the time of shooting
are stored in the raw file, but can be over-ridden. Likewise
there is no one right algorithm. Different algorithms will
yield different results - some may result in images with
slightly less detail but lower noise, or vice-versa, other
algorithms may give more accurate colour reproduction, etc.

yep

As a result of these differences, there are comparatively
very few programs around that can view/print/edit a RAW
file, but they do exist. Theoretically it isn't entirely
necessary to convert to JPG/TIFF etc first, although in
practice that's how most tools work, because by converting
the image to one of the standard formats it then allows
greater flexibility.

actually there are quite a few apps that work with raw directly without
converting it to anything, including lightroom, photoshop and aperture.

As for shooting RAW+JPG, this offers the advantage that you
can preview/edit/print the JPG image using commonly
available software. The camera produces a usable JPG at
shooting time, so in many cases there is no need to
post-process. Browsing/viewing JPGs is also faster than
opening them in a RAW converter so it makes it much quicker
to go through and identify the "keepers". Then if you
ascertain that the image is good, you can then use the RAW
to tweak any settings that may not be quite 100% perfect.

browsing jpegs used to be faster. today that's no longer the case.
thus, raw+jpeg is largely a waste.