RAW heresy?

Started Sep 6, 2013 | Discussions thread
nannyg Senior Member • Posts: 1,736
Re: A simple film analogy

stevo23 wrote:

nannyg wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

The Raw/Jpeg analogy is better expressed as: RAW is like your negative and jpeg is like the prints you might have gotten from the negatives. One comes from the other. The negatives will have all you can get out of your capture while the prints are limited by the lab's choice of paper/exposure/development process etc.

I've read essentially the same analogy many times, but I think it is misleading.

Raw begins like a negative but you can do many more things to it than you ever could to a film negative. If you make modest processing choices, then yes, it sort of mirrors what a developer used to do with film. But if you make dramatic adjustments, they may well not have been possible with any conventional film developing technique. Therefore the implication that RAW=negative="purity" is a bit misleading.

You could say that JPEG represents a "developed" print from the camera, but that clearly implies that you are finished with it. That is a gross mis-statement and willfully misleading. Today JPEGs can be easily adjusted to a degree that is fairly impressive (though not as much as RAW).

So the overused "negative/print" analogy seems sort of logical at first glance, but falls apart when reality gets in the way of a clever sounding quip.

Analogies all fall apart at some point. I'm not sure why you have to assign moral values to this with statements like "gross misrepresentation" or "willfully misleading". I can assure you there was nothing of the sort happening. Clearly there is some kind of religious thing going on with you and RAW files and I don't want to get in the way of that.

Ha It's more of an anti-religious sort of thing, actually.....

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