Some RAW Questions

[isaiahbrink]

Originally Posted by RobArtLyn

No, it is not why. It is because you have the camera set to record NEF + JPEG. (See the Image Quality portion of the Shooting Menu, pages 45 & 171 of the manual.) The embedded JPEG is just that, embedded in the data file. You don't see it as such, you think you are looking at the raw file.


Because, technically, raw isn't an image file format. It needs to be processed to be converted into a format that contains a coherent image. (It needs to be demosaiced for starters.) That is why raw files contain embedded JPEGs. Software can be written that doesn't have to know how (& spend the time) to interpret the raw data in order to display a thumbnail for cataloging and image management.


I was just responding to your rather bizarre assertion about not getting embedded JPEGs, but then this has been a rather strange thread to read in its entirety. Many people, fine photographers all, dependent on digital photography with barely the first clue about how their cameras and computers actually work.


OK, but since the original question was to help him find his JPEGs when shooting raw+JPEG and he has since admitted that he copies the images manually off of his card, I can't imagine how any of us are going to him where he put them. If he knows where he put his raw files, why doesn't he know where he put his JPEGs and why doesn't he just search for them if he accidentally put them in the wrong directory? They have the same name as the raw files, just with a different extension.


Sorry, I am having difficulty understanding this comment. I assume you meant to say you turned off raw (NEF) compression. JPEG compression only affects, well, JPEGs. Unless you think that by turning it off you turned off JPEGs, because you don't see the point of shooting raw+JPEG, which would explain your question at the top of the post and my comment a little farther down.

Robyn, this is a fine example of the drawbacks to the written word, you completely missed the point. Sorry, but you're still wrong after this lengthy explination. Just curious, why is it that Adobe, Nikon, and Canon disagree with you? Why did so many different programmers write the software on the camera to give 2 different files on the card itself? Why even bother giving it another file extension if it's just a jpeg? They obviously have the know how to make the camera sucsessfully write a jpeg file in and of itself. Why is it that programs like Lightroom and Photoshop have the capability to interpret the raw data into an image and then show a preview? I guess when you break it down, with all of those I's and O's, it gets confusing after awhile. I'm sure that you do a great job at work, so this isn't a personal attack, I'm just going to side with so many more programmers and experts.

[RobArtLyn]

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

Robyn, this is a fine example of the drawbacks to the written word, you completely missed the point.

At this point, I am thinking that it is you, but in case it is me, let's please be explicit. No assumptions, no shortcuts in your writing please. I'll go first.

For starters, its RobArtLyn (the first three letters of my first, middle and last name), not Robyn, to the left of my every post, so your reading comprehension skills are suspect right there. Please have the courtesy to get my name right, or at least pay enough attention.

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

Sorry, but you're still wrong after this lengthy explination. Just curious, why is it that Adobe, Nikon, and Canon disagree with you?

What is it that you think that I am wrong about? What is it that you think that those fine companies disagree with me about? My "lengthy explanation" touched on multiple short topics, from your use of your camera to embedded JPEGs to the OP's original question. Please state it specifically and explicitly. I have a hunch, but that hunch may be wrong.

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

Why did so many different programmers write the software on the camera to give 2 different files on the card itself? Why even bother giving it another file extension if it's just a jpeg?

Give what another file extension? The raw file? It isn't just a JPEG and I never said it was. I (and others) said that all raw files have JPEGs embedded inside them as a part of them. A small part of them, but I never said that a raw file is just a JPEG. It is anything but. If you think that I did, please quote the post where I said it.

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

Why is it that programs like Lightroom and Photoshop have the capability to interpret the raw data into an image and then show a preview?

Because that is what they are for. At some point you want to actually work with the raw data and see what the image will look like if you apply some group of settings to it. However, not every software package that works with such files is intended for editing raw files. For example, perhaps you have heard of Digital Asset Management (DAM) software. A DAM package can be tailored to just library management without any raw editing functions supported. That allows the developers to eliminate the needless overhead over being able to interpret all of the possible raw formats that someone might be storing. That's where the embedded JPEGs come in. It is an open, universally supported image standard that any software package can read to display a thumbnail, so when you are using the DAM package of your choice, you can decide which library to drag a particular file to by just looking at the image it contains. You don't need to open the file up in an editor that understands the particular raw format that it contains. There are other advantages to having a small JPEG embedded in a raw file, but I won't go in to them here.

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

I guess when you break it down, with all of those I's and O's, it gets confusing after awhile.

Now would be a good time to loose the condescending attitude, because it's 1's and 0' not I's and O's and...

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

I'm just going to side with so many more programmers and experts.

I happen to be one of them.

[isaiahbrink]

Ok then Mr or Mrs expert, answer PhotoDave's question then, since you speak for ALL of the experts out there. Throw in your 2 cents into the ring instead of responding to me. I started off by attempting to help him out, next thing I know, you're responding to what I say instead of the question at hand. Here's the original post. Educate all of us would you?

Hi All:

I am just starting to experiment with the Canon RAW and the ACR in Photoshop and I am moving slowly. I think I have all of the camera related stuff down such as setting the exposure with the PhotoVision target and settign a Custom White Balance but I have a few questions about the actual RAW setting itself and how it impacts my camera and Photoshop.

I have my camera set to RAW plus JPEG Large/Fine and I can't seem to open or even find the JPG's once I upload the images to my computer.

I see three file formats .CRW, .THM, and .XMP. Now, I am pretty sure the .CRW files are the RAW images but I have no clue as to what the other two formats are and I still can't find the .JPG files.

Anyone who can shed some light on this mystery of mine please feel free to jump in. Thanks.
__________________
David Allen Photography
Phoenix, AZ 85044
G1#: 51075
d_allen55@hotmail.com
Skype: DAllen561

[kgphoto]

Hey isaiahbrink,,

Having read along this exchange, I think that reality is that you are talking at cross purposes, based on mis-understanding some of the terms and realities of digital cameras.

Dave's post has been well answered until he shows us a sample of what he is setting the camera at and how he is saving them on the computer via screen shots.

So I think if you and Rob, get on the same page, you will agree with him.

In a nutshell:

There are three(3) files made when you shoot on the RAW + JPEG setting on your (Nikon) and my (Canon) camera. They are:

1. The Raw file
2. The embedded JPEG that is hidden inside the raw file and is used to form the preview on the back of the camera. It is even there if you shoot RAW only.
3. The JPEG file that is the "+JPEG" setting. On my camera, this can be a large fine, a large standard, medium fine, medium standard, or small fine, small standard. The standard and fine relate to the amount of compression and the large, medium and small relate to the pixel spread, ie 4368 x 2912 vs. 2496 x 1664 for the large vs the small respectively.

If you use window explorer (on a PC) you cannot see the embedded JPEG file. It doesn't even show up. You can see the icon for the RAW, but not see the actual picture. You can see the JPEG and see a picture and open it further in Windows Picture editor.

You can sort these files by name, size date, time. and TYPE so all the JPEGs are at the top and all the RAWs at the bottom and vice versa. Perhaps that is what Dave is doing. Until I can see his camera, we may never know.

[kgphoto]

isaiahbrink,

It looks like a recent reply of mine to you, got put back on the previous page. I will never understand how this works.

[isaiahbrink]

Originally Posted by kgphoto

Hey isaiahbrink,,

Having read along this exchange, I think that reality is that you are talking at cross purposes, based on mis-understanding some of the terms and realities of digital cameras.

Dave's post has been well answered until he shows us a sample of what he is setting the camera at and how he is saving them on the computer via screen shots.

So I think if you and Rob, get on the same page, you will agree with him.

In a nutshell:

There are three(3) files made when you shoot on the RAW + JPEG setting on your (Nikon) and my (Canon) camera. They are:

1. The Raw file
2. The embedded JPEG that is hidden inside the raw file and is used to form the preview on the back of the camera. It is even there if you shoot RAW only.
3. The JPEG file that is the "+JPEG" setting. On my camera, this can be a large fine, a large standard, medium fine, medium standard, or small fine, small standard. The standard and fine relate to the amount of compression and the large, medium and small relate to the pixel spread, ie 4368 x 2912 vs. 2496 x 1664 for the large vs the small respectively.

If you use window explorer (on a PC) you cannot see the embedded JPEG file. It doesn't even show up. You can see the icon for the RAW, but not see the actual picture. You can see the JPEG and see a picture and open it further in Windows Picture editor.

You can sort these files by name, size date, time. and TYPE so all the JPEGs are at the top and all the RAWs at the bottom and vice versa. Perhaps that is what Dave is doing. Until I can see his camera, we may never know.

Ok KG, so what you're telling me is that there is something embedded that can't be seen on a system running Windows, Mac OS, Linux, or Unix. Not just anything, a jpg file within another file. It's been common knowledge that the exif information contains the info that you mentioned, size, date, time, exposure, camera type, lense, settings, etc. which is embedded within the file and can easily be viewed through a roudementary exif viewer program. Now, how would I verify what you are saying with regards to the embeded jpg information?

[RobArtLyn]

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

Ok KG, so what you're telling me is that there is something embedded that can't be seen on a system running Windows, Mac OS, Linux, or Unix.

You can't see the internal structure of a PDF document, Oracle database or any countless number of file types without the appropriate tools. What is your point?

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

Now, how would I verify what you are saying with regards to the embeded jpg information?

You use a JPEG preview extractor utility. I will save you the trouble of using Google. Here is one that you can use on your NEF files:

http://www.earthboundlight.com/photo...extractor.html

Note the last sentence of the first paragraph of the description.

Here is one that runs on Macs:

http://echoone.com/filejuicer/formats/nef

[RobArtLyn]

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

Ok then Mr or Mrs expert, answer PhotoDave's question then, since you speak for ALL of the experts out there. Throw in your 2 cents into the ring instead of responding to me. I started off by attempting to help him out, next thing I know, you're responding to what I say instead of the question at hand. Here's the original post. Educate all of us would you?

I addressed this specific point in an earlier post in this thread. The one where you replied that I got everything wrong. How ironic.

How can we tell him where he copied his files? He is the one who put the card in the reader and did the copying. If he can't remember where he put them them, all he has to do is use the search function. They have the same name as his raw files, just with a different extension. I am sure you know what that extension is.

Thanks for turning this thread into a flame fest. I simply tried to correct a glaring misunderstanding on your part and your replies have progressed through obstinance, condescension and now rudeness. Do you ever get to the point where you learn something, realize that you were wrong and apologize? You know, the kind of behavior that would be in harmony with your signature at the bottom of all of your posts.

[isaiahbrink]

Originally Posted by RobArtLyn

I addressed this specific point in an earlier post in this thread. The one where you replied that I got everything wrong. How ironic.

How can we tell him where he copied his files? He is the one who put the card in the reader and did the copying. If he can't remember where he put them them, all he has to do is use the search function. They have the same name as his raw files, just with a different extension. I am sure you know what that extension is.

Thanks for turning this thread into a flame fest. I simply tried to correct a glaring misunderstanding on your part and your replies have progressed through obstinance, condescension and now rudeness. Do you ever get to the point where you learn something, realize that you were wrong and apologize? You know, the kind of behavior that would be in harmony with your signature at the bottom of all of your posts.

I checked to see if you had posted an answer, and it must have gotten deleted or something, because KG did make an honest attempt to answer it, as well did I, but the first post that appears from you inlcuded a quote from me. To think, you could have put up the links that you did in this last post much earlier and provided some sort of proof behind what you were saying. Let's face it, either one of us could lie about who we work for or what we do for a living, but once you offer some proof from an independant thrid source, it gives you creditability. Arm yourself in a battle of wits!!

[RobArtLyn]

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

I checked to see if you had posted an answer, and it must have gotten deleted or something

No it didn't, it is right here:
http://www.glamour1.com/forums/tech-...tml#post265042
And I alluded to where it was in my previous post. If you would actually spend some time in thoughtful reading, you might actually notice the relevant details, instead of pointlessly rehashing the same things over and over and acting like you are scoring some great point.

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

To think, you could have put up the links that you did in this last post much earlier and provided some sort of proof behind what you were saying.

15 seconds with Google on your part would have saved you being a jackass because...

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

Let's face it, either one of us could lie about who we work for or what we do for a living, but once you offer some proof from an independant thrid source, it gives you creditability. Arm yourself in a battle of wits!!

My word is my credibility. Lie? What exactly do you think this is? I will tell you what it is not: It is not an adversarial process. It is not a "battle of wits", for which, given your somewhat random and ill-formed ramblings in this thread, you do not appear to be very well armed. Take a little parting advice: If you are going to battle someone, learn to read what they write with a little care, particularly when they address specific points that you raise.

This is supposed to be an environment where photographers share what they know for the betterment of all members. The first item of the G1 Core Values and Beliefs http://www.glamour1.com/forums/view.php?pg=core_values is "1. Honesty above all else, nothing less."

Lie to you? What for? I couldn't be bothered. It would serve no useful purpose and would be counter to every reason why I even bother to participate in this or any other forum. Thank you for wasting my time while I was trying to help correct your misunderstanding. I did, however, learn one thing during the course of this thread. Your last post has made your character crystal clear. I will have nothing more to do with you.