On dimanche, ao� 3, 2003, at 12:48 Europe/Paris, Paul Tansley wrote:
(Big Snip)Maybe I'm out of step with other photographers, but I thought Shangara's reference to a RAW file as a negative was very valuable. All photographers understand that a negative needs another 'process' before a final image is produced AND that there are many ways that this process can be taken, yielding different results. This fits the RAW concept rather well, therefore I think it's a valuable way of explaining RAW files to anyone who is new to shooting digitally.It's already been processed by your camera once. The RAW file format comes
closest to fitting the description of a digital negative.
As explained above. There is no such thing as a negative in digital work.
The term "negative" is used by most people, to indicate an "original" that
other images are produced from, and that these daughter images can be
altered in some way without affecting the original "negative". If one
reserves the term "negative" exclusively for RAW files, what would you have
us call a JPG that comes from a camera, where the RAW file was never saved?
Personally I think the term "negative" is more than adequate for the task
and easily understood by most users.
Personally I would prefer that this was not devalued by applying the negative analogy to all digital capture. So, what to call an original JPEG from a camera? Well, how about an original? Not clever, but it kind of works. Also it reinforces the concept that this is a valuable original, and not to be tampered with, except by copying....I suppose it could be called a transparency, after all we're all used to duping them - but, yawn, I know it doesn't have an emulsion.
My 2 cents, William Davies.
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
