A raw file is nothing else than a piece of exposed, but not developed film. As soon as development (hence some raw-converter‘s „develop“ tab) plays in, the picture becomes visible. I’m bewildered how stubbornly some forum members try to establish „alternate facts“, but as I some time ago thought along the same line – ignoring the fact that the development process takes a fraction of time in digital and doesn‘t involve any liquids - I can understand the difficulties, maybe coming with age and solid half-knowledge.
2 Likes
Suggestion - in addition to having that file available on your website, post it here in addition, as a separate thread.
As for me, I’ll do two things - try to save your page as a file on my own computer, and add a bookmark to your page.
I love the way the page “grew” on me, as I read it, along with the examples that made things more obvious.
Having grown up in the “analog era” with a chemical darkroom, I fully agree with this analogy!
1 Like
Me too, thank you 
1 Like
For what it’s worth, to me, those files do not literally contain an image. What they contain, is the information that can be used to create an image.
Just as like in the film days, the un-developed film does not yet include an image - only after processing, does the developed negative contain an image. I think the key word was “latent”, as in a latent image.
- latent image, in photography, the invisible configuration of silver halide crystals on a piece of film after exposure to image-bearing focussed light ; it is distinguishable from unexposed silver halide only by its ability to be reduced to metallic silver by a developing agent.
It’s like a large rock - does it contain an “image”? No, but a sculptor, with hammer and chisel can bring out an image.
Or, this post - the alphabet does not contain this post, but my use of the alphabet has created this post.
My camera creates a raw file. Does that file contain an image? No, but using the proper process, an image can show up.
@tvalleau (Tracy) has explained this infinitely better than what I have written, and done so in a way that now makes perfect and logical sense to me. I did sort of understand before, but her article she has posted makes everything “obvious”.
1 Like
deleted by author
You got it. Both RAW and JPEG (to pick one) contain a load of numbers, from which appropriate software can construct a human-viewable image, be it on a screen or, through printing, on a piece of “paper”.
The load of numbers must contain the image though, otherwise, said software would be unable to construct a human-visible image, be it on a screen or as a print. No matter if you look into a raw image file or a jpeg (etc.). what you’ll see is something like this:
All in all, the confusion is in the words and their meaning. Depending on language, there are words and meanings that do/don’t clarify differences. Moreover, and because language is highly redundant, these words are used to convey different meanings.
- Image and Likeness
- Picture and Image
- Bild und Abbild
- Image et Reproduction
- Immagine e Somiglianza
- etc.
Ah yes, the necessity for the correct use of terminology. It’s an uphill battle…
The words ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ are often used in phrases like, “This coffee is too strong”, “This coffee is too weak.” Anybody who hears such a phrase knows exactly what it means yet it is an incorrect statement. The correct phrase would be, “This coffee is too concentrated / too dilute”, because the phrase is describing the fact either too little or too much water has been used to prepare the coffee.
Oh boy, is that pedantic or what? Yes but in the real world it no one cares and the fact the statement is incorrect doesn’t stop life carrying on.
However, that common misuse of ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ in place of ‘concentrated’ and ‘dilute’ becomes a problem if you are not talking about coffee but are talking about acids. In that context a ‘strong’ acid is most definitely not the same as a ‘dilute’ acid, i.e. when talking about acids you cannot use ‘strong’ as a synonym for ‘concentrated’ or ‘weak’ when you mean ‘dilute’. You don’t want to dip your finger into a ‘strong’ acid even if it is only a ‘dilute’ one.
In other words, in certain situations it’s very important to use words correctly. This topic illustrates that principle very well.
3 Likes
spot on, Mike. (And FWIW, I’m an old guy with a beard, despite my first name… 
1 Like
As an Apple developer since 1978, I agree. I was merely responding to those who said that a raw file was “exactly the same thing” as a jpg or tif, and that a raw file IS an image file. As your list noted, all the file formats you listed are “images” -except- the “raw image file” which is “a base type that represents a raw image format.”
I also agree that for the average user, it makes no difference what hoops the software jumps through to generate the image. Except when it does: you cannot visually edit a raw file, as such files cannot be changed (OK: without a hex editor) whereas you can edit an image file, and thus change the file’s contents.
If one thinks s/he is editing a raw file, and comes back tomorrow and reloads the raw file, they will be confused because all of those changes will be “lost.”
So, personally, I don’t think understanding the difference between a raw file and an image file is being pedantic. I think it’s useful.
Of course it is equally true that Joe Sixpack will never see a raw file in the first place. But you might be surprised how many photographers don’t realize that you’re editing a bit-map file in Photoshop, not a raw file.
YMMV 
2 Likes
I understand that now. I wondered why your image showed a beard. Not that it matters.
…one of these days, you’ll upload some of your own photos here, so we can enjoy the end results?
Believe me, I’ve taught enough photo club classes to see an awful lot of folks who don’t even see the need for RAW files - come to that, post-processing - apart, that is, from those who take and edit on their smartphone 
But then so many “photographers” don’t want to have to be computer savvy - all they want to do is make their “pictures” look nice(r) and send them off to social media, etc. To them, wha they see on the screen, no matter what the file type, is just that - a picture. And why they do with their computer is edit that picture. Then they “send” that picture straight from the editing software to whatever dark recesses of the interweb they inhabit - exporting is just a nuisance that they suffer, not realising that, without that export, they still don’t have a true image file
Then you get the real geeks, like me, who will sometimes take up the challenge of making an image, totally in the camera, using filters, grads, etc, as a JPEG. Why? Because if I can do it with Fuji Velvia 100 transparency film, with only 5 stops of DR, it pleases me to know that I haven’t lost those film skills, just because I’m using a digital.
That’s also one of the slogans on the internet. You never edit a diskfile, you load that file in memory and/or use it to create another file. Than you can save it again to disk. Is it done on the same place then you overwrite the old file, is it done on another place then you have 2 files. Just the difference between Save and Save As. The raw data is only used to create a RGB raster but I can change/ad the sidecar files thus change the raw file.
George
I’m sorry George, you only had two choices, but it shows just how difficult it is to say what software produces what results 
I watched a documentary about a famous documentary and people photographer, who came out with the “statement” that digital could never replace B&W photography…
That film was produced in 2018. Oh boy, was he wrong. But he is a man totally in love with the process of B&W darkroom photography. My guess is, given enough time, he would master digital to a point where his prints would be every bit as marvellous as his darkroom work, but how do you replace the hit to the senses of the chemistry in the darkroom, along with watching the image appear out of white paper like magic?
I was wrong??? 
George
Errr, yup
There is a different feeling between analogue and digital if you mean analogue with B&W.
See the difference in noise. Analogue is random, digital is more structured following the raster.
George
Also in PL or any other converter. Only a few tools are raw based: exposure correction, white balance, Deepprime noise reduction. Maybe one more but the others are done on the RGB raster image.
George
Sitting, as I am, in a room with large prints produced by both processes, I have to disagree.
But that could be down to the Canon Pro 1000 printer that I use. What digital noise? It takes a very powerful loupe to even see the ink dots and, if there is grain added, that masks them, especially at an appropriate viewing distance.
If you don’t have noise then you can’t see it. That’s normal.
George