Curiosity only: If we could print a RAW file, would it look better then a printed JPEG file?

Started Feb 16, 2013 | Discussions thread
HumanTarget
Contributing MemberPosts: 616
Like?
Re: Curiosity only: If we could print a RAW file, would it look better then a printed JPEG file?
In reply to John Deerfield, Feb 19, 2013

John Deerfield wrote:

Well, you have Adobe who created the DNG format as a way to standardize the Raw file. But then it becomes up to each camera maker to adopt Adobe's algorithms instead of Adobe backwards engineering the camera makers. However, DNG or otherwise, you can't print a Raw file. Calling it a software issue is splitting hairs. Software must be used to convert the Raw file into an image file. Period.

Actually, you can print a raw file straight from Windows with the right codec (I assume Macs have something similar).

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=26829

And even JPEG's (or TIFF's, or any image format) need to be converted to the right data for printing (or viewing, for that matter); the processing of them is just standardized and well defined.

But yes, I'm nitpicking.  If you're shooting raw files, clearly you want to process them yourself, and so the stored in-camera values aren't what you're interested in.  I'm just saying that they're there, whether your raw processor makes note of them or not.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow