Feature request; acronym glossary

[digitaldog]

Isn't that precisely the reason to distinguish RAW file from raw data? RAW is a proprietary raw. Or as Canon defines it: RAW is a converted/processed raw.

Nope but nice try. Canon’s propriety raw files are CRW.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I suspect some sort of wiki might be better. Threads here take up an awful lot of screen real estate to say very little (that's not a general comment about quality, just an observation about single-line postings).

One solution would be if someone volunteers to start a thread, where that volunteer would enter the initial batch of acronyms and abbreviations, and then modify the post as new come along. Is there a way to prevent comments on a thread, short of locking it? It would be something rather easy to do if that volunteer would be someone with admin privileges, but that would be too much to ask from the moderators I suppose.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Nope but nice try. Canon’s propriety raw files are CRW.

Canon RAW files just end in .CRW, just like Nikon ones end in .NEF.

Notice how Nikon describes it?

[digitaldog]

Canon RAW files just end in .CRW, just like Nikon ones end in .NEF.

Notice how Nikon describes it?

Yes! And there's your acronym SLOBODAN (NEF, Nikon Electronic Format). What you've missed again is that raw data is written as raw, not RAW not simply because you see it written that way in a Canon manual (like ON isn't the only way to write that unless you're shouting in an all cap method which is kind of silly).
You can call camera raw files RAW all you wish, doesn't change the facts or present your inability to understand that it's a hack/kludge by people who don't know better until told. So no, it isn't precisely the reason anyone incorrectly uses RAW as you assume (since you did ask and you now know). And no, RAW is not a converted/processed raw. Raw is raw. RAW can be an acronym, you've been provided examples, none of which have anything to do with camera data!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... it's a hack/kludge by people who don't know better until told...

Like Nikon and Canon?

[digitaldog]

Like Nikon and Canon?

Here that person would be you. YOU (better?)

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

In the future, to clarify things, I intend to explain to those inquiring that I set my cameras to Ruderklub Am Wansee format, instead of the Ruderklub Am Wansee plus Jiangsu Provisional Government that some photographers prefer.   

P.S. I suspect Canon's ".CRW" is an acronym for "Canon Raw Whatever."

[digitaldog]

In the future, to clarify things, I intend to explain to those inquiring that I set my cameras to Ruderklub Am Wansee format, instead of the Ruderklub Am Wansee plus Jiangsu Provisional Government that some photographers prefer.   

P.S. I suspect Canon's ".CRW" is an acronym for "Canon Raw Whatever."

https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/CRW
CRW   Canon Raw Format (filename extension)
https://whatis.techtarget.com/fileformat/CRW-RAW-File-from-Canon-digital-camera-Header
CRW stands for RAW File from Canon digital camera Header.
Go figure...

And for SLOBODAN: if two (or more) companies say a silly thing, it's still a silly thing! 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Like Nikon and Canon?

And Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Fujifilm... sorry, got tired of adding arrows in the last two, but that shouldn't even be necessary, the words RAW are quite visible because... they are capitalized

[fdisilvestro]

Nikon, Canon and many others produce outstanding photographic equipment, but that does not mean they are an authority in the language.

For instance, almost nobody follows the rules of the International System of Units (SI)

- A space should be used to separate the unit from the number: i.e. 50 mm instead of 50mm
- the unit of time is second or s but not sec (most of the specifications write shutter speeds as 1/x sec)
- Large numbers should be divided in groups of three with a thin space between them (no dots or commas). i.e. 10 000  and not 10.000 or 10,000 nor 10000

And this is just a small list of issues.

[digitaldog]

And Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Fujifilm... sorry, got tired of adding arrows in the last two, but that shouldn't even be necessary, the words RAW are quite visible because... they are capitalized

Adobe doesn't as outlined.
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf
They are doing this correctly! Bruce Fraser, Jeff Schewe and lots of other's don't do this incorrectly.
Read Bruce's article above not to prove he nor Adobe muck this up as you and Canon/Fuji/Nikon do, but to understand what raw data is. Your posting indicates you may need this primer.

[digitaldog]

Nikon, Canon and many others produce outstanding photographic equipment, but that does not mean they are an authority in the language.

Yes and that fact will fall on someone's deaf ears. Since political argument is off limits, defending the use of RAW in all caps while stating it's not an acronym is all some have to play with with these days. The 1st amendment allows people to speak/write in a technically sloppy fashion and we should allow people to do so, fully understanding that technical subjects like raw data isn't a topic everyone is qualified to understand. It's fine. It gives readers an impression on how people's 'minds work' and allows them to be further prejudge their further writings on such subjects.
You go back far enough, you'll find I used RAW incorrectly too until corrected by people I know, know more than I do (that would be Thomas Knoll). Not everyone knows what they don't know and can't learn new/correct concepts. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Adobe doesn't as outlined...

Does Adobe have its own proprietary raw format? If they would, they’d refer to it as RAW too.

You know, I am going to help you. There is a site, change.org, where you can start a petition to force all major camera manufactures to admit Andrew Rodney is right and they are all wrong.

[digitaldog]

Does Adobe have its own proprietary raw format?

No, they have an openly documented, non proprietary raw format called DNG. News flash for you? More homework for you:
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html

There is a site, change.org, where you can start a petition to force all major camera manufactures to admit Andrew Rodney is right and they are all wrong

I'm well aware of that site and have been for many years.

And there's a web site called Luminous Landscape where people can see and admit that SLOBODAN is wrong. 

[digitaldog]

There is a site, change.org, where you can start a petition to force all major camera manufactures to admit Andrew Rodney is right and they are all wrong.

Wrong again.
For your readers who appreciate seeing corrections to your writings, the site you are probably confusing is one with a petition for an openly documented raw format, not one that has anything to do with how a manufacturer correctly or incorrectly write the word raw:
https://www.openraw.org
Noted there: The original "The RAW Problem" article by Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape (RIP) and Juergen Specht got published in 15 languages worldwide.
And here on this site:
https://luminous-landscape.com/the-raw-flaw/

This petition is being posted on a large number of web sites; sites with a combined readership of more than one million photographers from every country in the world.
Add your voice today.

Did you add your voice there yet SLOBODAN? 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...  Noted there: The original "The RAW Problem" article by Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape...

You are deflecting via a straw man, but I am glad you brought up that article. Noticed how Michael Reichmann was referring to RAW files?

[digitaldog]

You are deflecting via a straw man, but I am glad you brought up that article. Noticed how Michael Reichmann was referring to RAW files?

You believe he, like you, is infallible?

[LesPalenik]

You are deflecting via a straw man, but I am glad you brought up that article. Noticed how Michael Reichmann was referring to RAW files?

Michael mentioned more than once that spelling was not his forte.

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=59843.msg482761#msg482761

[Farmer]

One solution would be if someone volunteers to start a thread, where that volunteer would enter the initial batch of acronyms and abbreviations, and then modify the post as new come along. Is there a way to prevent comments on a thread, short of locking it? It would be something rather easy to do if that volunteer would be someone with admin privileges, but that would be too much to ask from the moderators I suppose.

Jeremy (or Kevin or Chris etc.) creates a thread that is locked and pinned.  Someone else creates a thread where people supply definitions which is open.  As new posts are made, the moderators move over relevant info to the pinned thread - the other thread just sits and grows over time or new ones are made etc.

[jeremyrh]

In the meantime, maybe discussion of straight from the camera not-processed type files can be banned for fear of upsetting folk.