Download & manage RAW files?

Canon has a free software that opens and edits Canon RAW files and faithfully renders the great Canon colors. It is called Canon Digital Photo Professional and can be downloaded from Canon's website.

It is not particularly fast and the noise reduction functions are rudimentary, but it is a decent FREE editor.

Nikon and Olympus (OM Systems) also have their free software that works with their cameras.

I highly recommend you start with Canon DPP if you are a Canon shooter.

Danno B said:

LynniePad said:

Here’s that Sony text with raw substituted for RAW. At one point it becomes ungrammatical.

raw & JPEG:
File format: raw (Records using the raw compression format.) + JPEG
A raw image and a JPEG image are created at the same time. This is suitable when you need 2 image files, a JPEG for viewing, and a raw for editing.

Click to expand...

That is just plain nonsense and factually incorrect because there is no such thing as a raw, or even RAW, image.

Click to expand...

Why do you presume to be the authority on such matters?

The original intent of the text is clear to everyone, and I was just pointing out the silliness of insisting that RAW be rendered as ‘raw’ in every circumstance, particularly when it can be considered a label rather than an adjective.

Also, the matter of exposure with attendant comments on ISO, lightness etc. is so simple as to only warrant scant attention, yet you continually flog that dead topic.

A dull and boring “stuck record”” as mentioned in forum guidelines.

Being a stuck record. Make your point and move on. Cross-posting the same thing in multiple threads, or re-stating your point of view ad infinitum just annoys other site users.

LynniePad said:

Danno B said:

LynniePad said:

Here’s that Sony text with raw substituted for RAW. At one point it becomes ungrammatical.

raw & JPEG:
File format: raw (Records using the raw compression format.) + JPEG
A raw image and a JPEG image are created at the same time. This is suitable when you need 2 image files, a JPEG for viewing, and a raw for editing.

Click to expand...

That is just plain nonsense and factually incorrect because there is no such thing as a raw, or even RAW, image.

Click to expand...

Why do you presume to be the authority on such matters?

Click to expand...

I'm not an authority as it is common knowledge that the raw data is not actually an image. The raw data has to be demosaiced, assigned a profile and colour space and white balanced before it can be rendered as an image.

Maybe you have no issue with anyone, camera manufacturers included, spreading misinformation but especially in a Beginners Forum I have no issue with misinformation being corrected.

LynniePad said:

The original intent of the text is clear to everyone, and I was just pointing out the silliness of insisting that RAW be rendered as ‘raw’ in every circumstance,

Click to expand...

That is just an opinion.

RAW in any circumstance is silly to me because it implies that RAW is an acronym when it clearly is no such thing.

LynniePad said:

particularly when it can be considered a label rather than an adjective.

Click to expand...

I would never consider it a label. YMMV and your choice to make.

LynniePad said:

Also, the matter of exposure with attendant comments on ISO, lightness etc. is so simple as to only warrant scant attention, yet you continually flog that dead topic.

Click to expand...

I didn't mention exposure* at all in that post so I don't see what you are rambling on about.

LynniePad said:

A dull and boring “stuck record”” as mentioned in forum guidelines.

Being a stuck record. Make your point and move on. Cross-posting the same thing in multiple threads, or re-stating your point of view ad infinitum just annoys other site users.

Click to expand...

Do you mean like you have been here and elsewhere?

--
* exposure - amount of light striking the sensor per unit area while the shutter is open
** optimal exposure - the maximum exposure* within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.
Canon 90D, 600D, Photoshop Elements with Elements+, Elements XXL

LynniePad said:

Michael Fryd said:

There are some good reasons to standardize on using the lowercase "raw" for camera raw files.

However, some camera manufacturers have standardized on the all uppercase "RAW".

This makes it a choice between what common sense would suggest ("raw") and the existing industry standard ("RAW").

It's similar to pointing out that it makes more sense to describe the angle of view in degrees, even though the industry has settled on describing angle of view in units of "focal length needed on a traditional 35mm film SLR" (sometimes called "effective focal length").

Click to expand...

It’s easy to rationalise the capitalisation of RAW if you regard that as a label, just as camera makers label their internal menus.

Here’s that Sony text with raw substituted for RAW. At one point it becomes ungrammatical.

raw & JPEG:
File format: raw (Records using the raw compression format.) + JPEG
A raw image and a JPEG image are created at the same time. This is suitable when you need 2 image files, a JPEG for viewing, and a raw for editing.

Common sense doesn’t always make sense.

Click to expand...

Lifted from Canon's DPP documentation:

A RAW image is image data that has recorded output data of imaging
sensor. Because image processing does not occur inside the camera
when a photo is taken and the photo has been recorded in the special
form of “RAW image data + Image processing conditions information at
the time of shooting”, special software is needed to view or edit the
image.
* “RAW” means “in a natural condition” or “not processed or refined”.

Please refer all further arguments to Canon headquarters and hope that the OP has not been put off by all this not common but none sense.

LynniePad said:

Jestertheclown said:

LynniePad said:

LynniePad wrote:.

It’s easy to rationalise the capitalisation of RAW

Click to expand...

That's 'initialisation.'

Click to expand...

If you want to be precise, the word is ‘initialism’, but in the present context, ‘capitalisation’ is the best description, because RAW is a label, not a string of words. So there!

Click to expand...

If you want to be precise, the word 'initialism' is a noun and would be preceded by 'an' or 'the,' depending upon its use.

In this context (and don't forget you used the word 'capitalisation,' not 'capitalism), 'initialisation,' is correct.

'Capitalisation,' the act of using a capital letter at the beginning of a word is completely different.

'Raw,' all lower case, is an adjective and as such, there's no requirement for it to be written in caps.

LynniePad said:

LynniePad said:

"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

Click to expand...

So glad that I’m not!

Click to expand...

You really would be . . .

LynniePad said:

As usual, the point of the discussion is lost when people quibble over details.

Click to expand...

"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

LynniePad said:

Danno B said:

LynniePad said:

Here’s that Sony text with raw substituted for RAW. At one point it becomes ungrammatical.

raw & JPEG:
File format: raw (Records using the raw compression format.) + JPEG
A raw image and a JPEG image are created at the same time. This is suitable when you need 2 image files, a JPEG for viewing, and a raw for editing.

Click to expand...

That is just plain nonsense and factually incorrect because there is no such thing as a raw, or even RAW, image.

Click to expand...

Why do you presume to be the authority on such matters?

The original intent of the text is clear to everyone, and I was just pointing out the silliness of insisting that RAW be rendered as ‘raw’ in every circumstance, particularly when it can be considered a label rather than an adjective.

Also, the matter of exposure with attendant comments on ISO, lightness etc. is so simple as to only warrant scant attention, yet you continually flog that dead topic.

A dull and boring “stuck record”” as mentioned in forum guidelines.

Being a stuck record. Make your point and move on. Cross-posting the same thing in multiple threads, or re-stating your point of view ad infinitum just annoys other site users.

Click to expand...

Take no notice of him Lynnie.

Every thread that Danno vists gets locked and if anyone panders to him, this one will go the same way.

Sadly, what should have been a bit of harmless banter between us re. the grammatical use of the word 'raw.' (a subject that's been done to death on here!) has now been lost but it was fun while it lasted.

Needless to say, since any semblance of manners is now gone from the conversation, I shall be taking no farther part.


"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

Danno B said:

LynniePad said:

Here’s that Sony text with raw substituted for RAW. At one point it becomes ungrammatical.

raw & JPEG:
File format: raw (Records using the raw compression format.) + JPEG
A raw image and a JPEG image are created at the same time. This is suitable when you need 2 image files, a JPEG for viewing, and a raw for editing.

Click to expand...

That is just plain nonsense and factually incorrect because there is no such thing as a raw, or even RAW, image. The Sony marketing people, like other camera manufacturers' marketing people try to dumb things down for the mum and dad "photographers" and then get it horribly wrong as in this case.

A more correct version would be:

"A JPEG image is created after the shutter has closed and the collection of the raw data from the sensor is complete. The raw data can optionally be stored in a separate file (for customised development in a raw converter software application) to the JPEG image file."

Click to expand...

You should be a technical author. That's a very clear and concise text and way superior to the Sony version. Still, to be fair to Sony, the text probably started in Japanese (which has completely different alphabets - 4 of them - grammatical rules and doesn't have capitalisation) then was translated, likely by translators that didn't have much clue of the content, and then to technical authors, who might have had a little more, but then again, not much.

Jestertheclown said:

LynniePad said:

Danno B said:

LynniePad said:

Here’s that Sony text with raw substituted for RAW. At one point it becomes ungrammatical.

raw & JPEG:
File format: raw (Records using the raw compression format.) + JPEG
A raw image and a JPEG image are created at the same time. This is suitable when you need 2 image files, a JPEG for viewing, and a raw for editing.

Click to expand...

That is just plain nonsense and factually incorrect because there is no such thing as a raw, or even RAW, image.

Click to expand...

Why do you presume to be the authority on such matters?

The original intent of the text is clear to everyone, and I was just pointing out the silliness of insisting that RAW be rendered as ‘raw’ in every circumstance, particularly when it can be considered a label rather than an adjective.

Also, the matter of exposure with attendant comments on ISO, lightness etc. is so simple as to only warrant scant attention, yet you continually flog that dead topic.

A dull and boring “stuck record”” as mentioned in forum guidelines.

Being a stuck record. Make your point and move on. Cross-posting the same thing in multiple threads, or re-stating your point of view ad infinitum just annoys other site users.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That looks to me like a direct attempt to influence the moderators to sanction Danno. In sports it would be taken as trying to influence the referee and result in a sanction against the perpetrator. It's not being very nice.

Jestertheclown said:

Take no notice of him Lynnie.

Every thread that Danno vists gets locked and if anyone panders to him, this one will go the same way.

Sadly, what should have been a bit of harmless banter between us re. the grammatical use of the word 'raw.' (a subject that's been done to death on here!) has now been lost but it was fun while it lasted.

Click to expand...

Having looked through the thread you've been as active in stoking controversy. I happen to agree with you on the matter of 'raw', but that's a completely different thing from starting bullying behaviour against someone who has the temerity to intrude on your private joke.

bobn2 said:

Jestertheclown said:

LynniePad said:

Danno B said:

LynniePad said:

Here’s that Sony text with raw substituted for RAW. At one point it becomes ungrammatical.

raw & JPEG:
File format: raw (Records using the raw compression format.) + JPEG
A raw image and a JPEG image are created at the same time. This is suitable when you need 2 image files, a JPEG for viewing, and a raw for editing.

Click to expand...

That is just plain nonsense and factually incorrect because there is no such thing as a raw, or even RAW, image.

Click to expand...

Why do you presume to be the authority on such matters?

The original intent of the text is clear to everyone, and I was just pointing out the silliness of insisting that RAW be rendered as ‘raw’ in every circumstance, particularly when it can be considered a label rather than an adjective.

Also, the matter of exposure with attendant comments on ISO, lightness etc. is so simple as to only warrant scant attention, yet you continually flog that dead topic.

A dull and boring “stuck record”” as mentioned in forum guidelines.

Being a stuck record. Make your point and move on. Cross-posting the same thing in multiple threads, or re-stating your point of view ad infinitum just annoys other site users.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That looks to me like a direct attempt to influence the moderators to sanction Danno. In sports it would be taken as trying to influence the referee and result in a sanction against the perpetrator. It's not being very nice.

Click to expand...

and note that it was Lynniepad who started the whole thing about raw v RAW zealots.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

Take no notice of him Lynnie.

Every thread that Danno vists gets locked and if anyone panders to him, this one will go the same way.

Sadly, what should have been a bit of harmless banter between us re. the grammatical use of the word 'raw.' (a subject that's been done to death on here!) has now been lost but it was fun while it lasted.

Click to expand...

Having looked through the thread you've been as active in stoking controversy. I happen to agree with you on the matter of 'raw', but that's a completely different thing from starting bullying behaviour against someone who has the temerity to intrude on your

Click to expand...

bobn2 said:

Jestertheclown said:

LynniePad said:

Danno B said:

LynniePad said:

Here’s that Sony text with raw substituted for RAW. At one point it becomes ungrammatical.

raw & JPEG:
File format: raw (Records using the raw compression format.) + JPEG
A raw image and a JPEG image are created at the same time. This is suitable when you need 2 image files, a JPEG for viewing, and a raw for editing.

Click to expand...

That is just plain nonsense and factually incorrect because there is no such thing as a raw, or even RAW, image.

Click to expand...

Why do you presume to be the authority on such matters?

The original intent of the text is clear to everyone, and I was just pointing out the silliness of insisting that RAW be rendered as ‘raw’ in every circumstance, particularly when it can be considered a label rather than an adjective.

Also, the matter of exposure with attendant comments on ISO, lightness etc. is so simple as to only warrant scant attention, yet you continually flog that dead topic.

A dull and boring “stuck record”” as mentioned in forum guidelines.

Being a stuck record. Make your point and move on. Cross-posting the same thing in multiple threads, or re-stating your point of view ad infinitum just annoys other site users.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That looks to me like a direct attempt to influence the moderators to sanction Danno. In sports it would be taken as trying to influence the referee and result in a sanction against the perpetrator. It's not being very nice.

bobn2 said:

Take no notice of him Lynnie.

Every thread that Danno vists gets locked and if anyone panders to him, this one will go the same way.

Sadly, what should have been a bit of harmless banter between us re. the grammatical use of the word 'raw.' (a subject that's been done to death on here!) has now been lost but it was fun while it lasted.

Click to expand...

Having looked through the thread you've been as active in stoking controversy. I happen to agree with you on the matter of 'raw', but that's a completely different thing from starting bullying behaviour against someone who has the temerity to intrude on your private joke.

Click to expand...

I know I said I'd be taking no further part and that's my intention but I'll respond to this.

Stating a fact isn't the same thing as bullying and in fact, said intrusion was unnecessarily rude.

Respectfully, perhaps you should look farther afield than this thread before you form an opinion on my remarks.

You'll find that I'm only stating the truth.


"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

Jestertheclown said:

...
You'll find that I'm only stating the truth.

Click to expand...

Well, quite a lot of threads that drew your attention ended locked. Just saying

Jestertheclown said:

"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

Click to expand...

and that is getting rather stale: you've had it as a signature from the first post in 2012. The advantage for others is that they can hide sig's they have seen long enough. But you take the trouble to make it unavoidable and today act surprised when it gets a negative response

LynniePad said:

A raw image and a JPEG image are created at the same time.

Click to expand...

They are not.

Iliah Borg said:

LynniePad said:

A raw image and a JPEG image are created at the same time.

Click to expand...

They are not.

Click to expand...

Thank you for you clear explanation as to why you disagree with the statement.

However, this is a beginner's forum, and am going to disagree with you on this question.

.

Under the hood, the raw data is always captured first. If the camera is set to produce a JPEG file, it is created right after the raw data is captured. The camera created JPEG is typically created within seconds of the raw data being captured.

Contrast this with a workflow where the camera is only saving raw files. In that case the JPEG may be created hours, or even days after the raw file was created.

You are correct, in that if we are having a technical discussion with someone who writes camera firmware, the camera produced JPEG is clearly created after the raw data is captured. In that context, a few seconds of difference can easily be significant.

If you are talking to a beginner about the difference between a camera produced JPEG, and one produced later on a computer, it isn't crazy to describe the camera produced JPEG as being created at essentially the same time as the raw file. In this context, a few seconds is probably not significant.

As the current context is a beginner's form, it is reasonable to describe the camera produced JPEG as being created at essentially the same time.

Michael Fryd said:

If the camera is set to produce a JPEG file

Click to expand...

If it is not, most of the cases JPEG is created anyway (embedded JPEG), and _before_ the raw file.

Michael Fryd said:

As the current context is a beginner's form, it is reasonable to describe the camera produced JPEG as being created at essentially the same time

Click to expand...

Distorting facts is never reasonable. Especially when those facts are so basic.

--
http://www.libraw.org/

Iliah Borg said:

Michael Fryd said:

If the camera is set to produce a JPEG file

Click to expand...

If it is not, most of the cases JPEG is created anyway.

Click to expand...

Again, it depends on whether you are talking to software developers or photographers.

You are correct in that many raw file formats contains an embedded JPEG compressed preview image. However, when a beginner is talking about a camera produced "JPEG", they are most likely talking about a separate JPEG file.

The issue here is one of terminology. "JPEG" is a term used to denote both a way of compressing image data, and a file format that contains that compressed data.

In the context of a discussion with a software developer, you are correct in that a JPEG compressed image is usually embedded in a raw file.

In the context of a discussion with a beginner photographer, an unqualified use of "JPEG" almost always refers to a JPEG file.

.

In the context of the current thread, where the OP is looking for software to organize his raw files, it is not helpful to digress into a discussion of the compression used for embedded preview images.

.

Of course, if you do count the embedded preview as a JPEG, then that JPEG must be created before the raw file is written to the memory card.

Michael Fryd said:

Iliah Borg said:

Michael Fryd said:

If the camera is set to produce a JPEG file

Click to expand...

If it is not, most of the cases JPEG is created anyway.

Click to expand...

Again, it depends on whether you are talking to software developers or photographers.

Click to expand...

The Earth is flat, or not, depending on who you are talking to.

Michael Fryd said:

In the context of the current thread, where the OP is looking for software to organize his raw files, it is not helpful to digress into a discussion of the compression used for embedded preview images.

Click to expand...

That's not what I'm discussing.

What is recorded first, raw or JPEG, is important from the point of view of reliability. One format results in smaller files, the other - in larger files.

Ciao.

Iliah Borg said:

Michael Fryd said:

Iliah Borg said:

Michael Fryd said:

If the camera is set to produce a JPEG file

Click to expand...

If it is not, most of the cases JPEG is created anyway.

Click to expand...

Again, it depends on whether you are talking to software developers or photographers.

Click to expand...

The Earth is flat, or not, depending on who you are talking to.

Ciao.

Click to expand...

Yes.

If the context is getting around Miami, it makes sense to ignore the fact that the Earth is round. Assuming the Earth is flat makes the discussion much easier.

Another good example is that Newton's Law (Force equals Mass times Acceleration) turns out to be wrong. However, like the fiction that the earth is flat, Newton's Law is very useful in many circumstances (i.e. where we are dealing with speeds much slower than the speed of light).

.

But I am open to discussion.

The OP posted in a beginner's forum looking for software to help organize his raw files. The discussion digressed into the timing of when raw files and JPEG files are created.

In what way was it helpful to this beginner's discussion to claim that JPEGs are created even when JPEG files are not being created? Remember the discussion was about JPEG files, not about JPEG compression.

Not a problem. You will not be hearing anymore from him on this forum.

Footski said:

Not a problem. You will not be hearing anymore from him on this forum.

Click to expand...

I think you could be replying to the wrong person?


"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

My reply was not aimed at one person…