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

Started Feb 16, 2013 | Discussions thread
apaflo Veteran Member • Posts: 3,854
Re: Curiosity only: If we could print a RAW file, would it look better then a printed JPEG file?

HumanTarget wrote:

apaflo wrote:

That still misses the point. With any given RAW file the values for color and luminance of any given pixel have NOT been set. Instead there is a range of possible values, plus the potential of those being adjusted depending on which values are also used for other pixels. It's not an image, it's just sensor data.

An image file has a color and luminance precisely specified for each and every pixel in the image.

You're missing my point. Cameras can output JPEG's. That must mean that the camera manufacturers must have decided on a standard way of processing the information given the camera settings, correct? Raw files contain that same information. So my point is that it's not the data itself that's undefined, but the processing of said data.

Manufacturers have not, in any way, decided on a standard set of JPEG defaults. Not only is every model of camera, even from the same manufacturers, different... some manufacturers (Nikon is one) ship the same model to different parts of the world with different defaults. A Nikon sold in Japan has different defaults than one sold in Europe and those are both different than those sold in the USA and other locations.

They do not share their defaults with others, and it is not at all valid to think of it as any kind of standard.

The fact that the data can be processed in any number of ways does not contradict my point; it is in full agreement with it.

The fact that it is processed in any number of different ways absolutely contradicts your point.

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