If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Could you actually see photos made from RAW files? | mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH [email protected] | Digital Photography | 33 | June 3rd 09 07:32 AM |
Could you actually see photos made from RAW files? | Savageduck[_2_] | Digital Photography | 8 | June 1st 09 04:22 AM |
Could you actually see photos made from RAW files? | Steven Green[_3_] | Digital Photography | 0 | May 30th 09 09:27 PM |
Could you actually see photos made from RAW files? | nospam | Digital Photography | 0 | May 30th 09 09:18 PM |
Could you actually see photos made from RAW files? | Trev | Digital Photography | 0 | May 30th 09 09:18 PM |