Raw vs jpeg?

I understand the need to clarify the terms raw and jpeg for beginners, so I'm not disagreeing here, but neither a jpeg nor a raw file are actual pictures. Both need decoding to be able to view them. Both contain colour and brightness data for the resulting pixels. The difference is just the format of the decoding process. So in 'principle', they are of a similar type. Yes, practically, they differ in that jpeg can be decoded by more devices and different programs. And jpegs store a slightly different depth of colour values.


Anyway, I'd suggest if the OP was not sure, to begin with jpegs until you find are not quite satisfied with the results. Then give the raw process a try.
 
Last edited:
I think a lot depends on the subject and how the final image will be used and viewed. I also think that it's certainly possible to get great images using JPEG, I have a few hanging in my house that look fine to me and also on my desktop. These were shot as JPEG and then tweaked in Photoshop to produce the final image. So if someone is quite happy with the way the JPEG engine in the camera processes the image, fair enough for them there is no need to retain the RAW image data.

On the other hand, if the subject has difficult lighting, or something out of the ordinary is required by the photographer or a technical error was made at time of capture, then having the RAW data gives much greater latitude for customised adjustment.

It's the same as buying a ready meal from the supermarket or a takeaway (JPEG) vs buying the core ingredients and cooking the meal using your own recipe (RAW). If you're happy with the ready meal, no worries. If you want to choose just how much salt or garlic is used in the meal or which particular cut of meat is used, then cooking from scratch is a better option.

Sometimes if we're tight for time or just cant be bothered to cook, then that 'Chicken Korma for Two' kit is likely to fit the bill. If the kids are home or we have guests for dinner, then cooking from scratch is more likely to be what we do.

There's no right or wrong, it just depends on what you want and can be bothered to do.
 
GeeJay57 said:
I think a lot depends on the subject and how the final image will be used and viewed. I also think that it's certainly possible to get great images using JPEG, I have a few hanging in my house that look fine to me and also on my desktop. These were shot as JPEG and then tweaked in Photoshop to produce the final image. So if someone is quite happy with the way the JPEG engine in the camera processes the image, fair enough for them there is no need to retain the RAW image data.

On the other hand, if the subject has difficult lighting, or something out of the ordinary is required by the photographer or a technical error was made at time of capture, then having the RAW data gives much greater latitude for customised adjustment.

It's the same as buying a ready meal from the supermarket or a takeaway (JPEG) vs buying the core ingredients and cooking the meal using your own recipe (RAW). If you're happy with the ready meal, no worries. If you want to choose just how much salt or garlic is used in the meal or which particular cut of meat is used, then cooking from scratch is a better option.

Sometimes if we're tight for time or just cant be bothered to cook, then that 'Chicken Korma for Two' kit is likely to fit the bill. If the kids are home or we have guests for dinner, then cooking from scratch is more likely to be what we do.

There's no right or wrong, it just depends on what you want and can be bothered to do.
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
Teflon-Mike said:
The difference Between 'Data' & Information
The Whether forecast For Birmingham, tomorrow (10am);
Data:
Temperature =10 Degrees
Wind-Speed 11mph North-North-West
Visibility 'good'
Humindity 76%
UV Index 1
Probability of Precipitation 5%​
Information:
It'll be cold & dry and a bit cloudy.​

Do we need to know the exact temperature or UV index? Do we WANT to know these 'facts', OR do we just want to know whether to take a drolly with us when we go to catch the bus to work?

'Data' is not 'information', it is the unprocessed 'facts' from which you might 'infer' something 'useful' which is the 'information'.

Direct from camera RAW files, contain the 'raw' un-interpreted 'data' that might be used to describe a picture. It is not a 'picture'.

The JPeg 'standard' is a 'standard' for creating a set of 'paint by numbers' instructions for a computer device to paint the picture by numbers.

The 'Raw' snobbery abut the question of 'throwing away data' is some-what curious, as that 'data' unless its used to make a picture is pretty much irrelevant and useless.... what counts is what's in the data file that paints by numbers the picture you see... which means the 'throwing away data' issue isn't one.. its merely WHO throws away the data and decides what is or isn't thrown away....

Issue as to how much 'less' 'original' data is contained in a JPEG is then some-what mute, if you consider that's always what you are going to 'see', and the 'information' that's important is the data-file describing those display pixels, where, what the camera saw might not actually be all that important or relevant.

You can make a JPeg 'picture' file in 'Paint'; you don't need ANY 'original data' from a camera, and having more data wont make your display picture any more 'accurate' or 'faithful', to what you saw.

It offers some small additional chance in PP to make some pretty limited adjustment to you might use to add correction you couldn't if the camera has encoded straight to JPEG, interpreting the capture data as the cameras programmers have pre-determined, rather than how you might choose, but it IS a pretty limited amount of adjustment.

And ultimately you are goig to end up looking at a paint by numbers 'display' image, so does it really matter whether any 'Post-Processing' to effect a look or style, comes from original captured data, or from data recorded in Post-Process, from moving a slider, adding a 'one touch filter effect' or even painting in individual pixels to spot-out or clone in, or even paint over what is there with what we want to be there in the displayed image.

That, the displayed image, is at the end of the day what we see, regardless of what relevant or irrelevant data might be the stored image file, surely?!
Click to expand...
I don't agree, this misses key points by a mile, and you can't ignore a properly processed raw produces a far better image.

Why is that?

Because of the extra data that's captured - that IS wholly relevant and has nothing to do with 'snobbery'.

Your point - "'Data' is not 'information', it is the unprocessed 'facts' from which you might 'infer' something 'useful' which is the 'information'." Is fine for your weather forecast example, but not so much when it comes to image data where the relevance is vital. A compressed music file would have been a far better example. A lossless audio file sounds far better than a compressed audio file such as an MP3, and that's why audio engineers such as studio producers and Foley artists use lossless .we and .ape files (for example) - because they contain more data and thus the quality is inherently higher. (or more simplistically what sample sounds better, one taken at 44.1 kHz or 22 kHz?).

Its not just about "who throws the data away" it's about having better quality data. For example JPEG records 256 levels of brightness, and RAW records between 4,096 to 16,384 levels (that's the difference between 8 bit and 12 to 14 bit).

The amount of adjustment isn't limited either?

What does this mean -

"And ultimately you are goig to end up looking at a paint by numbers 'display' image, so does it really matter whether any 'Post-Processing' to effect a look or style, comes from original captured data, or from data recorded in Post-Process, from moving a slider, adding a 'one touch filter effect' or even painting in individual pixels to spot-out or clone in, or even paint over what is there with what we want to be there in the displayed image."

It's not about filters at all. Do you process raw yourself? Using Lightroom to carefully process and redress a captured image (I say redress as I use it to reproduce what I saw when I took the image, something the JPEGs don't do) is not like Instagram... Neither is image manipulation? Which you can't even do in Lightroom. Though I do agree with your point (if I've interpreted it correctly) that the final result, as long as its pleasing and what the author was after, is all that matters.

I'm from your post guessing you don't shoot and use raw a lot though?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Yawn, I don't know why you keep going on Jim? There's no right or wrong.
 
Last edited:
Robintaylor said:
Yawn, I don't know why you keep going on Jim? There's no right or wrong.
Click to expand...
No there is actually, when facts are misrepresented as above. I'm not going in, it's a discussion? And by the way its "you're".
 
Last edited:
If people stopped spouting BS it wouldn't need to be countered. All the while that goes on guess what, I'm here!!
 
Last edited:
A warning has been given for this post
Leaving this thread some of us have a life
 
Robintaylor said:
Leaving this thread some of us have a life
Click to expand...
You said that last night, you're still here so somethings keeping you?

Anyway, here is a prime example and maybe you should see this?

Not a perfect example but a good one. A few months ago I was lucky enough to be on one on the most beautiful beaches in the world on a remote piece of coastline in Borneo. I was sat in the sand watching a stunning sunset. Guess what - I took a photo. If you looked at the jpeg the viewer might even ask "why did he take this, there is no sunset?"

Here is the jpeg;
jpeg o by Jim, on Flickr

The camera exposed for the foreground and the trees. Exposing for the sky kills the foreground detail which is unrecoverable on a jpeg.

Not what I saw. Luckily I shot raw too;
24673889979_c24d2f8ae2_c.jpg
39 by Jim, on Flickr


Now, that brought the image back to what I was enjoying whilst sat there. Why would I want a print of the top one in my book when I can have a far more accurately replicated photo of what I was sat in front of as per the second image?
 
Last edited:
Robin, if you have anything useful to contribute, let's hear it. Your comments serve only to display ignorance - or possibly worse, given that you have to my mind at least contradicted yourself in your attempts to stir things up here.

I have several issues with what Mike wrote, not least because as jpg is a lossy format (throws away data) information is lost every time you save a new version. In my tests, 6 saves are enough to produce a noticeable difference, so there's not much scope for going back later and reworking an image if you haven't kept at least the original jpg. And if you're going to do that, why not keep the raw together with all the adjustments so that you can undo/redo to your heart's content?

In black and white photography, our eyes can distinguish about 250 different levels of grey. If we adjust the levels or use curves or change the contrast in Photoshop, we're either expanding or contracting the tonal range and we'll end up with gaps in the histogram. The more gaps, the more likely we are to notice the difference.

One of the problems with this type of discussion is getting people to see differences which in the real world would only be apparent in a side by side comparision. Yes, a photograph may look perfect - but once you place a better version beside it, the differences and imperfections become obvious. It's the "just noticeable difference" which is only noticeable when you make a side by side comparision. And sometimes, the difference between "acceptable" and "best possible" can be more than merely "just noticeable". Now this depends on whether you're bothered about producing the "best possible" or not. I know that Robin can't be bothered (as he said so) but I'm not writing this for him but in the hope of making things clearer to the original poster. As a personal aside, I found that as I gained experience my standards became tighter, and my expectations of what I wanted in a print higher. If anyone else finds this, and wants to reprint an early photograph to a higher standard, they might find that having a raw file will let them do it.

Yes, there are times and images where jpg is "good enough". I write articles and provide photos for a local magazine and I use from the camera jpgs (usually with tweaks!) because I know that the image reproduction won't be high and the size will be small (about 1.5" x 1", if that). Cameras vary too in how much information they record. I have always been disappointed with the blown highlights that seem to occur at the least sign of bright highlights with an Olympus E3's jpgs, whereas a Sony a7r's jpgs don't suffer. But please - this is only an example from my experience and not an opportunity for brand bashing. I only mention it as relevant to the question of what can and can't be seen - and possibly we see what we are looking for!

Edited to correct typos.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
No there is actually, when facts are misrepresented as above. I'm not going in, it's a discussion? And by the way its "you're".
Click to expand...

By the way, it's "it's" ;) And it's "sitting" for the multiple times you've said "sat" lol. (I'm just kidding, no offence meant! I just thought it was funny that you corrected him and made a mistake yourself).
 
htid said:
By the way, it's "it's" ;) And it's "sitting" for the multiple times you've said "sat" lol. (I'm just kidding, no offence meant! I just thought it was funny that you corrected him and made a mistake yourself).
Click to expand...
Lol yes, concentrate on one thing and miss another blinder, lol!
 
odd jim said:
No there is actually, when facts are misrepresented as above. I'm not going in, it's a discussion? And by the way its "you're".
Click to expand...

Jim, I think your beach shot is a good example. I was trying for a simple (perhaps over simplified) analogy.
 
TheBigYin said:
when you come back from your "holiday".
Click to expand...

You're getting soft Mark , there was a timewhen you'd have dragged him screaming to your lair in the dungeons never to be seen again :lol:
 
odd jim said:
I don't agree
Click to expand...
That is your perogative.
odd jim said:
this misses key points by a mile
Click to expand...
No, not really, it misses YOUR point perhaps. You are obviously a RAW and Post-Process fanatic.
odd jim said:
you can't ignore a properly processed raw produces a far better image
Click to expand...
I cant? Really? That's a pretty arrogant supposition, demanding that I MUST agree that your highly subjective and circumstance dependant opinion, is actually a universal and utterly 'true' fact, which, it simply isn't.
odd jim said:
Because of the extra data that's captured - that IS wholly relevant and has nothing to do with 'snobbery'.
Click to expand...
Again, in certain situations, and in your opinion.
Data remains Data, on it's own, it is meaningless and irrelevant unless it is used.
odd jim said:
Your point - "'Data' is not 'information', it is the unprocessed 'facts' from which you might 'infer' something 'useful' which is the 'information'." Is fine for your weather forecast example, but not so much when it comes to image data where the relevance is vital.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you keep insisting this extra data is absolutely and unequivocally essential.. WHY?
To offer suggestion why you believe this
odd jim said:
a properly processed raw produces a far better image
Click to expand...
Your comment reveals your very constrained ideas and practices within photography.
Did Van Gaugh have a 'Raw' file to produce his painting of the Sunflowers?
Is his image of lower quality or less intrinsic worth, because he used a paint-brush not a camera, let alone one not storing image data in RAW format?!?
It is very revealing of what you think important and what you think relevant and what you think vital, in your photography, but no matter how useful or important you may find all this 'added data' to how you chose to make images, that does NOT make these aspersions unequivocal facts in every circumstance to every photographer or image maker!
odd jim said:
What does this mean - "And ultimately you are going to end up looking at a paint by numbers 'display' image.... {snip}
Click to expand...
It means exactly what I said.

Even in your editor, what you are looking at as the image you are editing is not data, or even the image instructions that a program has created from that data, it is the product, with however many layers of algorithmic processing performed to actually light up the individual pixels on your display screen.

What 'matters' is what you see.

And in post-process, you look at that algorithm made display image, and start changing it... adding or changing the instructions in the 'make' file to create the image you would like to be displayed.

IF you are going to 'make' your images in 'post-process', and your arguments imply that you do, and deem this a large part of where the image is made, you could, like Van Gaugh, create one entirely from your imagination on a blank canvas using a digital paint-brush to define the colour and brightness of individual pixels, without a camera, without any original capture data.

Does this make sense to you?

If you are 'making' your image in Post-Process, where you don't actually need to have taken a 'photograph', you don't need ANY original capture data the it is actually NOT important, or all that relevant, and even less relevant how much you don't have or what format it's saved in when captured!

You are not arguing for a file format, you are arguing to an entire approach and methodology in photography, and becoming ever more locked to the dogma of that methodology, ergo, post-process reliance.

If you enjoy that, if that works for you, then fine, BUT it is not the only way to make images, and the only place how much meaningless data you capture to play with in post-process has any relevance what-so ever, diminished further by how much you post-process, creating your now 'make file' for the display image.
 
Everyone "makes their images in post process" those shooting jpeg are just letting the cameras firmware make the creative decisions for them
 
Teflon-Mike said:
That is your perogative.

No, not really, it misses YOUR point perhaps. You are obviously a RAW and Post-Process fanatic.

I cant? Really? That's a pretty arrogant supposition, demanding that I MUST agree that your highly subjective and circumstance dependant opinion, is actually a universal and utterly 'true' fact, which, it simply isn't.

Again, in certain situations, and in your opinion.
Data remains Data, on it's own, it is meaningless and irrelevant unless it is used.

Yeah, you keep insisting this extra data is absolutely and unequivocally essential.. WHY?
To offer suggestion why you believe this

Your comment reveals your very constrained ideas and practices within photography.
Did Van Gaugh have a 'Raw' file to produce his painting of the Sunflowers?
Is his image of lower quality or less intrinsic worth, because he used a paint-brush not a camera, let alone one not storing image data in RAW format?!?
It is very revealing of what you think important and what you think relevant and what you think vital, in your photography, but no matter how useful or important you may find all this 'added data' to how you chose to make images, that does NOT make these aspersions unequivocal facts in every circumstance to every photographer or image maker!

It means exactly what I said.

Even in your editor, what you are looking at as the image you are editing is not data, or even the image instructions that a program has created from that data, it is the product, with however many layers of algorithmic processing performed to actually light up the individual pixels on your display screen.

What 'matters' is what you see.

And in post-process, you look at that algorithm made display image, and start changing it... adding or changing the instructions in the 'make' file to create the image you would like to be displayed.

IF you are going to 'make' your images in 'post-process', and your arguments imply that you do, and deem this a large part of where the image is made, you could, like Van Gaugh, create one entirely from your imagination on a blank canvas using a digital paint-brush to define the colour and brightness of individual pixels, without a camera, without any original capture data.

Does this make sense to you?

If you are 'making' your image in Post-Process, where you don't actually need to have taken a 'photograph', you don't need ANY original capture data the it is actually NOT important, or all that relevant, and even less relevant how much you don't have or what format it's saved in when captured!

You are not arguing for a file format, you are arguing to an entire approach and methodology in photography, and becoming ever more locked to the dogma of that methodology, ergo, post-process reliance.

And this - "You are not arguing for a file format, you are arguing to an entire approach and methodology in photography, and becoming ever more locked to the dogma of that methodology, ergo, post-process reliance." is a little judgemental and like the other fella, comes across as a little superior?

If you enjoy that, if that works for you, then fine, BUT it is not the only way to make images, and the only place how much meaningless data you capture to play with in post-process has any relevance what-so ever, diminished further by how much you post-process, creating your now 'make file' for the display image.
Click to expand...
Wow, you've gone to a complete extreme where I (and others) are "making" their entire images in PP. You have missed the point of processing raws. In a very portentous way, and it shows some ignorance of the subject which I assume is simply borne from the fact you don't shoot or use this process. And this - "You are not arguing for a file format, you are arguing to an entire approach and methodology in photography, and becoming ever more locked to the dogma of that methodology, ergo, post-process reliance" comes across as ignorantly superior, a bit like the other fella who's now banned.

The image isn't "made" in post, you are using what's already there, and you are aware you're demeaning a process that has existed since the dawn of photography as well I take it (and those that use it)? You seem to be confused with processing a raw and heavy image manipulation?

So I'm a graphic artist and not a photographer. I wish, I'd make some money if I was.
 
Last edited:
It's not really possible to have an argument like this if an extreme position isn't held by at least one party, but we do all like to talk in absolutes to reinforce our argument.

@Teflon-Mike Could you show us a photograph that, in your opinion, could not be improved by some post-processing to the RAW file?
 
ancient_mariner said:
It's not really possible to have an argument like this if an extreme position isn't held by at least one party, but we do all like to talk in absolutes to reinforce our argument.

@Teflon-Mike Could you show us a photograph that, in your opinion, could not be improved by some post-processing to the RAW file?
Click to expand...
I too would like to see that.
 
Teflon-Mike said:
Data remains Data, on it's own, it is meaningless and irrelevant unless it is used.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll accept this for the sake of argument. Well, a 1 megapixel camera and a 50 megapixel camera can both record exactly the same scene, and the only difference (we'll assume identical lenses etc.) will be that one has more data than the other. So, there's no difference between the results you get on screen, is there?

Where differences will become apparent is when you print large. The extra data then (even if it's "only" data which isn't really visible) should then make a difference.

In the case of my photography, jpgs don't hold enough data to make a decent image by my standards. They only have 8 bits, and if we assume that they are 8 bit greyscale (and why not, it's only data?) I can only have 255 different tones. A pity then that our eyes can distinguish 250 shades of grey because it means that any adjustments to the contrast or brightness will result in gaps - and the bigger the changes, the bigger the gaps. Until we have a posterised result.

This isn't a matter of my failing to get it right in camera. I'm accustomed in a darkroom to being able to use different paper grades to alter the contrast. I've always done this, and so has every other darkroom worker.

Edit for typo.
 
Last edited:
...I'll add - I bet pretty much all the photos in the finalists book of last years Landscape Photographer of the Year were shot raw and carefully processed by the photographer.

I doubt they settled for in camera jpeg settings or boots chemists.
 
Teflon-Mike said:
That is your perogative.

No, not really, it misses YOUR point perhaps. You are obviously a RAW and Post-Process fanatic.

I cant? Really? That's a pretty arrogant supposition, demanding that I MUST agree that your highly subjective and circumstance dependant opinion, is actually a universal and utterly 'true' fact, which, it simply isn't.

Again, in certain situations, and in your opinion.
Data remains Data, on it's own, it is meaningless and irrelevant unless it is used.

Yeah, you keep insisting this extra data is absolutely and unequivocally essential.. WHY?
To offer suggestion why you believe this

Your comment reveals your very constrained ideas and practices within photography.
Did Van Gaugh have a 'Raw' file to produce his painting of the Sunflowers?
Is his image of lower quality or less intrinsic worth, because he used a paint-brush not a camera, let alone one not storing image data in RAW format?!?
It is very revealing of what you think important and what you think relevant and what you think vital, in your photography, but no matter how useful or important you may find all this 'added data' to how you chose to make images, that does NOT make these aspersions unequivocal facts in every circumstance to every photographer or image maker!

It means exactly what I said.

Even in your editor, what you are looking at as the image you are editing is not data, or even the image instructions that a program has created from that data, it is the product, with however many layers of algorithmic processing performed to actually light up the individual pixels on your display screen.

What 'matters' is what you see.

And in post-process, you look at that algorithm made display image, and start changing it... adding or changing the instructions in the 'make' file to create the image you would like to be displayed.

IF you are going to 'make' your images in 'post-process', and your arguments imply that you do, and deem this a large part of where the image is made, you could, like Van Gaugh, create one entirely from your imagination on a blank canvas using a digital paint-brush to define the colour and brightness of individual pixels, without a camera, without any original capture data.

Does this make sense to you?

If you are 'making' your image in Post-Process, where you don't actually need to have taken a 'photograph', you don't need ANY original capture data the it is actually NOT important, or all that relevant, and even less relevant how much you don't have or what format it's saved in when captured!

You are not arguing for a file format, you are arguing to an entire approach and methodology in photography, and becoming ever more locked to the dogma of that methodology, ergo, post-process reliance.

If you enjoy that, if that works for you, then fine, BUT it is not the only way to make images, and the only place how much meaningless data you capture to play with in post-process has any relevance what-so ever, diminished further by how much you post-process, creating your now 'make file' for the display image.
Click to expand...
Mike
You're free to feel happy that you can't see the clear difference between a crappy in camera JPEG and a well processed Raw file, but I wouldn't feel superior about it if I was you. It's simply a symptom of having poor eyesight.
 
*Edited as I didn't want to look like I was criticising someone's images when they hadn't put them up for crit.* I'm just really struggling to see where Mike's attitude comes from. Its certainly not backed up with anything.
 
Last edited:
Mike - a camera, if set to do so, processes the info that it's generated from the light gathered by the sensor. And that info may be processed in camera to output as a jpg file. You know this!

Now who do you think has ordained how that info is processed? An engineer working for the company that made the camera - that's who. Nothing sacrosanct about that. It's somebody's guesswork.

Some of us, at least some of the time, like a bit more control where we can tailor our judgements about how we want the image to look, maybe especially with regard to highlights, shadows and the tonal range between - we substitute our judgements for the engineer's presets.

In all cases, the image is synthetic.

People have explained above & elswhere how a raw file contains more info that can be worked on without degrading like a jpg ...

It's not an issue, it's just how we work, with genuine intent and honed, flexible judgements ... part of the craft of photography.

Sure Van Gogh had a raw file - it was in his head - and he processed it himself! No jpg to be seen.
 
Last edited:
Just wanted to add - with mirrorless and fuji in particular there are a few features that move some of the things we might normally do during pp to before the shot is taken; DR, exposure preview, film simulation, contrast etc. I have a bunch of presets with different values for these set up. It's still effectively pp, just done in advance ☺ (oxymoron? ).
 
ancient_mariner said:
@Teflon-Mike Could you show us a photograph that, in your opinion, could not be improved by some post-processing to the RAW file?
Click to expand...

That would be difficult since you can't upload a raw file to the system and creating a jpeg would involve some editting
 
big soft moose said:
That would be difficult since you can't upload a raw file to the system and creating a jpeg would involve some editting
Click to expand...
I think he meant a "straight from the camera" jpeg that has everything correct and to the photographer's satisfaction, ie, a jpeg that is so perfect a self processed raw couldn't be any better :)
 
Well Ive got about 4000 tree safety shots in jpeg where i don't give a toss about photographic quality - they couldn't be improved (for purpose) by raw processing ;) - but yes i know what you mean
 
frod said:
Just wanted to add - with mirrorless and fuji in particular there are a few features that move some of the things we might normally do during pp to before the shot is taken; DR, exposure preview, film simulation, contrast etc. I have a bunch of presets with different values for these set up. It's still effectively pp, just done in advance ☺ (oxymoron? ).
Click to expand...
Yes. As the camera is basically a computer, it might be better to define "post processing" as pictures changed "after seeing the initial result". So a straight jpeg is not PP'd. But by that definition, nor is a DR or film or art mode PP'd either. As the influence was set at the factory. Even if you can predict the effect. Much like predicting a slight overexposure with +1. Which is not considered PP.

Is this a helpful definition?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top