1. Forum
  2. USENET
  3. rec.photo.digital

  • Was there a RAW setting for cameras which used film?

    From David B.@BD@hotmail.co.uk to rec.photo.digital on Sun Dec 28 13:35:34 2025
    From Newsgroup: rec.photo.digital

    Was there a RAW setting for cameras which used film?

    This was the response received by Google's Gemini AI:-

    https://gemini.google.com/share/5edb51939e2e

    Do you agree with the answer given?
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Carlos E.R.@robin_listas@es.invalid to rec.photo.digital on Sun Dec 28 14:57:21 2025
    From Newsgroup: rec.photo.digital

    On 2025-12-28 14:35, David B. wrote:
    Was there a RAW setting for cameras which used film?

    This was the response received by Google's Gemini AI:-

    https://gemini.google.com/share/5edb51939e2e

    Do you agree with the answer given?

    Of course there was no RAW with film.
    --
    Cheers, Carlos.
    ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Geoff@geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org to rec.photo.digital on Mon Dec 29 12:55:12 2025
    From Newsgroup: rec.photo.digital

    On 29/12/2025 2:35 am, David B. wrote:
    Was there a RAW setting for cameras which used film?

    This was the response received by Google's Gemini AI:-

    https://gemini.google.com/share/5edb51939e2e

    Do you agree with the answer given?

    Idiotic question, but the AI answer vaguely correct.

    Apart from its definition of Slide Film being something other than
    'raw', in the same way as negative film could be consided 'raw'.
    --
    geoff
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Abandoned Trolley@that.bloke@microsoft.com to rec.photo.digital on Mon Feb 16 18:16:02 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.photo.digital

    On 28/12/2025 13:35, David B. wrote:
    Was there a RAW setting for cameras which used film?

    This was the response received by Google's Gemini AI:-

    https://gemini.google.com/share/5edb51939e2e

    Do you agree with the answer given?



    Not really, and it all seems like a load of old tosh - and I have never
    heard of any film camera having any RAW setting (so the answer to the
    original question is probably "NO")

    Apart from exposing our own lack of knowledge, does this serve any
    useful purpose ?

    I am especially baffled by the "Choosing your Film" section along with
    the meaningless "Color Negative Film (The RAW equivalent)" and "Slide
    Film (The JPEG equivalent) headings (= utter bollocks)

    Luckily theres no mention of B&W film or any digital equivalent of
    Farmers Reducer :-\

    As the saying goes: - Artificial Intelligence is no substitute for real stupidity

    I

    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From danny burstein@dannyb@panix.com to rec.photo.digital on Mon Feb 16 21:26:58 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.photo.digital

    In <10mvmsv$133kr$1@dont-email.me> Abandoned Trolley <that.bloke@microsoft.com> writes:

    On 28/12/2025 13:35, David B. wrote:
    Was there a RAW setting for cameras which used film?

    [snip]

    I am especially baffled by the "Choosing your Film" section along with
    the meaningless "Color Negative Film (The RAW equivalent)" and "Slide
    Film (The JPEG equivalent) headings (= utter bollocks)

    Luckily theres no mention of B&W film or any digital equivalent of
    Farmers Reducer :-\

    How about orthochromatic vs. panchromatic?

    (which reminds me... gotta send ANOTHER letter
    to the museums, etc., with their footage of
    the Hindenburg Dirigible disaster, reminding them,
    AGAIN, to check whether the movie film was ortho
    or pan... which would make a BIG difference when
    comaparing to modern day, usually digital (but
    at least panchromatic) recreations/comparisons..
    --
    _____________________________________________________
    Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
    dannyb@panix.com
    [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2