RAW...

[youknowmejuarez]

the only way I understand RAW is as follows. RAW is digital negatives... thats it... please help anyone?

 

[tirediron]

RAW files are often referred to as digital negatives (though I don't really agree with that), but in simplest terms, RAW files are nothing more than the (almost) unprocessed data recorded by the camera's sensor, that is, the sensor output in it's raw format.

 

[nola.ron]

To put it another way:

Raw = you process the image (sharpening, saturation, curves etc) to how you want it to look

Jpg = camera does the processing and makes the image the way it thinks it should look. Also destroys the original data and gives you the camera processed data (image in jpg form)

 

[peter27]

I don't think raw files are really like analogue negatives; for me, and I don't shoot digital or develop my own film so bear this in mind, they are more like the latent image on undeveloped film. You need to import them to a digital darkroom (Photoshop or similar) to process them. Here you first create your digital negatives from the available info, a bit like the film being exposed to the chemical process to create traditional negatives. Then you tweak and adjust, and finally produce a jpeg or tiff that you print from, which is like a negative being exposed by the enlarger (dodge and burn and or colour filters being employed at this stage) to produce a positive that then goes on to become the print.

 

[weepete]

Raw is just another file type. It gives you a bit more leeway when editing your photos, and raw images need developed in post to get the best out of them.

So if you want to edit your pics in a program like Lightroom you'd benifit from shooting in raw, if you don't want to edit and get your images SOOC then shoot jpeg.

 

[480sparky]

Raw files are basically the data that is produced by the sensor, with minimum processing (conversion from analog to digital) and little else. The camera settings are stored as well, but not applied. In post, the software MIGHT apply the camera settings, but you can also change them if you wish. As raw files contain as much data as possible, a wider latitude in editing possibilities is available.

When 'shooting JPEG', the in-camera settings are applied to the data, and any unneeded data is deleted. Since the vast majority of data is deleted in-camera, JPEGs do not allow much for editing in post.

 

[Solarflare]

RAW files are often referred to as digital negatives (though I don't really agree with that), but in simplest terms, RAW files are nothing more than the (almost) unprocessed data recorded by the camera's sensor, that is, the sensor output in it's raw format.

RAW files are usually compressed.

However, its a LOSSLESS compression.

So yes, its a "digital negative" of sorts. Or more specifically, its the data the sensor itself has recorded, without the many losses of a highly compressed file format such as JPEG.

 

[KmH]

Raw is like a film negative in that it is not finished and ready to print.
A Raw file recorded on a memory card isn't yet a photograph much like an undeveloped frame of film isn't yet a photograph.
Raw files have to be converted from being a data file to a visible image outside the camera in one of the many Raw converters.

Each Raw converter application renders the Raw file a bit differently, because each Raw converter uses unique algorithms to do the conversion.

The JPEG file type was designed to be a finished ready to print right out of the camera file type. (JPEG = Joint Photographic Experts Group) JPEG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Raw image format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Raw image files are sometimes called digital negatives, as they fulfill the same role as negatives in film photography: that is, the negative is not directly usable as an image, but has all of the information needed to create an image.

 

[Braineack]

 

[hirejn]

OP, that doesn't represent a useful understanding of RAW, and some of the information on here is, as usual, bad. For example, RAW is not "just another file type." That demonstrates zero understanding of the topic and implies that the only difference is the extension, or that you need to know only that the extension is different. If you want to understand RAW, however, you have to look past the extension. RAW is most like a film negative if we're to make analogies, but that alone doesn't cover why it's similar or what you need to know about it. I have a blog post that will outline the key concepts of RAW and JPEG for you. No overview is complete, but this will help you understand both formats a little better, and afterward you'll know more than some of the other posters about the topic. I'm not interested in debating on RAW vs. JPEG, but I do think both formats should be understood.

Joel Nisleit Photography | Advantages of Shooting RAW vs. JPEG