Napioa - Wind Origins

Napioa - Wind Origins
by octopus                

Submit your Photo
Hall of Fame

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I understand that RAW files contain data straight from the sensor, that they're used as input to the production process that results in a final image, and that RAW isn't really one format but a collection of device-specific and mostly proprietary formats. But the fact the files are always described as "RAW" (all uppercase) rather than "raw" gives the appearance that the name is or was some sort of acronym. If that's the case, what does or did "RAW" stand for. If it's not, how did it come to be written that way?

share|improve this question
Then, in a list, you have the following options: JPEG, TIFF, raw, GIF, PNG... only raw would not be all-caps. Correct, but kind of weird to read. – woliveirajr May 27 '13 at 12:32
@woliveirajr I'd saw "raw" doesn't belong in that list. JPEG, TIFF, etc., are specific file formats; "raw" isn't. Depending on the context, I'd write something like "JPEG, TIFF, GIF, PNG, and various camera-specific raw formats." Or list the specific formats supported: "DNG, CRW, NEF". – coneslayer May 27 '13 at 13:18
up vote 25 down vote accepted

I suspect the answer here is that the format is written as "RAW" to match other common file format names which are acronyms such as JPEG, GIF, MOV, MPEG, etc. Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Hasselblad, Olympus, Sony, and many other manufacturers all write the format in all caps, so at this point it's a de facto standard. There is a distinction to be made between a raw image file in the "RAW" sense, i.e. image data unprocessed by the device, and a raw image file in the sense of "straight from the camera, not altered using image manipulation software", and I think writing the file format as "RAW" rather than "raw" helps to make this clear. When you write it in all caps you're indicating a specific file format, even if that format changes from one device or vendor to another.

Alan Shutko points out in his comment below that older cameras used file systems that only allowed uppercase filenames, like "IMG_0001.RAW". This is an excellent point and seems a likely reason that the format was initially written in all caps.

share|improve this answer
DOS used all-caps most of its life, and the early cameras used older versions of the FAT filesystem because of lower processing requirements. These versions were all-caps. – Alan Shutko Dec 27 '12 at 20:34
It's also usually indicated in all-caps in camera menus. It might have something to do with limitations of the LCD top panel, which is built around icons and segments (like digital clocks) rather than dots. A lower-case "a" is hard to render on a segmented display. – user2719 Dec 27 '12 at 22:42
@StanRogers Good point, but I wouldn't expect that to affect every other use of the term. For example, you might also see "bulb" (for long exposures) written in all caps on an LCD panel, but it's typically not written that way in manuals or on web sites. – Caleb Dec 27 '12 at 22:53
Actually, I am used to seeing Bulb and Time at least capitalized (it's usually represented with just a "B" or a "T" on older cameras, and it distinguishes the camera mode from the physical device used or the quantity being measured). And I would expect a single, unambiguous, canonical representation in menus and documentation. (I write, and expect to read, software documentation the same way.) – user2719 Dec 27 '12 at 23:05
Which cameras store their raw images with a .RAW extension? The ones I have come across all use their own, e.g. .CR2 .NEF – Matt Grum Dec 27 '12 at 23:12

A RAW file is a container format which includes metadata (proprietary and standard), possibly a JPEG-compressed preview, and a digitized record of the value of each sensor photosite, possibly with some low-level noise reduction applied and with dead pixels removed. This is common across the class of file formats we call RAW. Pure, "raw" sensor data alone wouldn't really be a RAW file. (And arguably wouldn't even be digital.)

People write "RAW" to make the term stand out as a graphics file format. It isn't an acronym, and it isn't even a single format, but it does mean something slightly different from the English-language word "raw" by itself. Therefore, it's useful for it to have a convention where it's written differently.

It's probably also the case that this is influenced by a tradition of writing file names and extensions in all-caps, going way back to the dawn of personal computing with DOS, when filenames were always upper-case and limited to 8 characters of the base filename plus a three-letter extension. See for example this chart comparing "DOC file" to "doc file":

doc vs DOC

or for that matter, JPEG (an acronym for Joint Photographic Experts Group) vs. JPG (the common file extension, but not an acronym) or lower-case "jpg":


You can see that even though "JPG" isn't properly an acronym, it's still more common than "jpg".

Now, there aren't, commonly, actual .RAW files, as it instead describes a class of files each with their own actual file type and format, usually specific to a manufacturer — .CR2, .NEF, .PEF, .RAF, .ARW, and so on, as well as the semi-standard .DNG (which does stand for something: Digital Negative). But, nonetheless, all-caps RAW is dominant:

RAW vs raw

So, is it proper English? Nah; it's jargon. But it is a well-established convention understood by many people and is helpful shorthand which conveys extra meaning.

share|improve this answer

"RAW" is not an acronym and shouldn't be written in uppercase, it should be written in lowercase. Raw suggests that it's the image as captured by the image sensor in your digital camera or the film without any modification.

share|improve this answer
I agree to some extent, but the industry doesn't: specifying the file format as "RAW" is common practice everywhere from camera interfaces to user manuals to photography-related web sites including this one. – Caleb Dec 27 '12 at 20:17
Personally, I write it in caps so that the fact I am discussing a file format stands out. Lowercasing it as simply raw allows the term to get lost within the text, and may lead to ambiguity. – jrista Dec 27 '12 at 20:49
@jrista yeah I understand what do you mean, but that's your personal taste, a lot of writers use raw and others use RAW, I spent sometime to figure out which one is the right one but with no luck – akram Dec 27 '12 at 20:55
I totally agree grammatically it should be "raw" or if referring to a specific format it can be a proper noun: "Raw". However I long ago gave up the fight and started using RAW for the sake of convention. – Matt Grum Dec 27 '12 at 23:10
Remember, it is still a proper noun, and thus should still have the first letter capitalized, giving you "Raw" as the proper form. – Evan Pak May 27 '13 at 22:18

Traditionally, the filetype ".raw" was a true raw pixel format, containing only the image buffer streamed to disk with no meta data. Photoshop and other viewers would then "guess" the height, width, bit depth, and channels by matching the file size with common aspect ratios and resolutions, otherwise user interaction was required.

Now it is commonly used as a common denominator for uncompressed or even lossless compressed sensor data before bayer interpolation from the cameras incl. a lot of meta data, and jpeg thumbnails. These are not true raw files, but most of them does have a raw file inside. I say most of them, because Canon does have versions of its "CR2" format that stores half resolution "RAW" images, and these are not raw at all.

share|improve this answer
This is important to note, because RAW generally means "one of those container formats from a camera, which is probably really a DNG, CR2, NEF, PEF, ORF, RAF, or X3F file, with that extension, not actually .RAW", not true raw files. – mattdm Jan 11 '13 at 13:02

There is a useful discussion of this issue on the talk page for the Wikipedia entry for raw image format. To summarize, Wikipedia editors decided on "raw" because it is not an acronym and therefore they felt there was no logical basis for its capitalization. That said, they decided to note that it is often capitalized, acronym-style, in common usage. I wouldn't call Wikipedia authoritative but I generally follow its examples unless there's a good reason not to do so, so "raw" it is.

share|improve this answer
Honestly, I don't think this counts for much. This is just the opinion of a handful of randomWikipedia editors without a lot of expertise, and seems to hinge on the idea that the term is just the plain English word "raw", which is actually factually incorrect. – mattdm Dec 19 '15 at 19:53

protected by mattdm Mar 21 at 2:09

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.