Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 7/4/2005 2:19:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Dennis Manasco writes:

I feel  that I have to correct this totally erroneous assertion, lest 
someone get  the wrong idea.

.TIF is __NOT__ the same as RAW
 
Not true. In Kodak's case, they were the same. Apparently you never used  
Kodaks in the 90's like I did (for a about 1/2 million shots).
 
Before they changed the name of their RAW files to .DCR (Digital Camera  
Raw), they were called .TIF files, even thought they were still RAW as far a  
content. Hence my reference to "terminal stupidity" on their part. Your  confusion 
serves to underscore my point further.
 
If your reread my original post that was PRECISELY my point about the  
confusion the ensued. Why they at least put a K in front of it like they do  
everything else was beyond me. They could have called it a KIF file as RAW KODAK  
PROPRIETARY format or something.
 
By calling it at .TIF when it was still RAW created no differentiation  
between the two files in any computer OS. The only thing you could see if you  
didn't have their proprietary software plug-in (before PhotoDesk), was a tiny  
thumbnail file (also called a TIF) while the full resolution capture remained  
RAW.
 
In fact, if you didnt' have the special "bad pixel" key file, you couldn't  
process the file from a different camera serial number, which made matters  
worse.
 
The latest PhotoDesk software from Kodak doesn't support the old RAW format  
(kodak's .tif) and is the EXEMPLARY CASE for Thomas Knoll's effort in having 
the  world adopt Adobe's .DNG format. I have many old Kodak DCS 460 RAW files 
that I  cannot process anymore. This is exactly why there is a worldwide 
movement toward  standardization to avoid this problem on a grand scale in the 
future.
 
Having over 100 proprietary RAW file formats right now is akin to having  100 
different film emulsions with proprietary film developers.
 
We need to demand these standards from camera makers irrespective of our  
favorite brand of B&W conversion technique.
 
Claude
 
 

 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]