edwardkaraa
New member
Anyone using this format? Seems to be slightly lossy but not more than Canon and Nikon standard raw. At 36mb per file, I'm starting to think standard raw is a waste of storage space.
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
But, "craw" isn't a word...at least not in this context...so where does that leave us? Which is more incorrect? Shouldn't that then be c-raw?I've never seen a comparison between raw and craw convincingly demonstrating a difference in the image. Until then I shall continue only using craw as the saving in disk space is significant.
Incidentally, being pedantic, raw is just the English word and not an acronym so should not be capitalised.
Huh? Are you still using FAT?Frankly, when I see a definition of a file type, I prefer to see it capitilized, just like it is with every other extension.
Right, it is the file system which DOS gave us. However, it is the only filesystem I am aware of which forces capitalization of filenames, including extensions. gsking was talking about capitalized extensions. My Mac uses lowercase for all extensions, as do all modern versions of Windows, and probably all unices.6. FAT is not a file format.