this will be intresting

Thanks Matt for that clarification. Should one want to extract the embedded jpeg, exiftool has the facility to do that. That jpeg is based on the camera settings and is a reduced size copy of the jpeg saved to the SD card.
That still begs the question, how could one view RAW data without processing it by one means or another? It's not possible! Either the camera has to process it or an external photo program has to to make the ones and zeros understandable.
One can have a similar question, how can one view a colour print from negative film without printing the negative. 20 different printers will end up with 20 different looking prints unless one gave the first print to each of the remaining 19 and asked them to match it (even then there would be subtle differences.)
This can only lead one to have to accept that there isn't such a thing as an unprocessed photograph. The only real question remaining is how much post processing is acceptable and that is one's personal opinion based on one's preferences and perception.

Sure, but Matt, would it not be fair to say however that when we are seeing that RAW image on the camera or in Lightroom, that the data has been run through a kind of 'on the fly' conversion process, via the camera processor or LR and held in temporary memory ? So that it's still ' converted ' into a raster type form for digital display?

Indeed. But that's the way it has to be (and the way the original "out of camera" JPG had to be produced internally).

When I used Provia and Velvia slide film they had to go through a comparable analogue process to get onto paper

I used my ' unadjusted' RAW converted JPEG as a possible example of what some might consider ' the original' . To produce it I opened my DNG in ACR and then unticked all of the auto boxes .... This reduced the automatic brightness, contrast, saturation and sharpness parameters, leaving a sort of visual shell of an image ....dull, dim, unbalanced tonal values and faded colours.

It certainly doesn't represent to me what I was capturing at the time.

But I don't think the Boots the Chemist brigade see a camera RAW as ' the original' either ....

Put another way, I don't think it's fair to judge a developed photo based on the path taken to get to it. As I said, akin to enjoying a concert performance, vs sitting through the endless practise sessions.

If it's a competition, then there are rules. Outside of that, there are no rules to photography, and I personally get quite annoyed by the constant judgements that imply that there actually are rules that must be adhered to. It's quite rude to dismiss a creation because of how it was made. Like any form of creativity/art, one is encouraged to form an opinion, express how they feel about it, but that should be on what they're observing, what's been presented to them. Depends on how open minded you are I guess.

I appreciate a good photo, and might even bug you for details around how you achieved it, so I can have a go and learn more myself

Likewise, I appreciate photos that are presented to appear as un manipulated as possible, or more specifically developed to try and reflect what was there on the day. It's all good, Shoot, Edit, Repeat as they say.

Where there are rules, then they should be adhered to. That's different. As an example, here's a recent one where some guy was disqualified for cloning out a foot. I'm fine with that, but I present it as an example of how dramatically different his contest application was from the original photo. Even if he'd left the foot in, showing the original photo would detract massively from the vibe and mystery of the shot presented.

This:



vs this:

They talk about only allowing retouching which conforms to the currently accepted standards in the industry. What on earth does that mean? It needs defining for that competition, not just a vague meaningless wish-washy instruction. The organisers need to do better.

I'm siding with Stu

I can see where he's coming from and I don't think it's simply to have a go at people on here (not all of you anyway :lol

I remember touching on something similar a few years back asking if digital had made photographers lazy with respect to getting it right in the camera, and generally speaking I think it has, myself included.
If you really want to learn how to compose and get the exposure right try a few years shooting slide film, about the only thing you could do with that other than choice of film was to crop by masking part of the slide.

There's nothing wrong with manipulation of an image but surely we should all strive to capture it as best we can in the camera to start with.

There are a heap of user controlled factors on the day. Composition, exposure, shutter speed, aperture.

That gets you the base image that then gets developed.

To me they are two different steps. It's like shooting on film but never submitting it to be developed.

I struggle to see how you can have one without the other.

The point your are making fatspider is really about the use of post processing to correct for mistakes made at capture point, through rushing or not worrying so much because of the awareness that you could correct things later.

That is again only one particular slant on the issue, and I don't think there would be much disagreement about that approach to photography as being a negative ....I think most would agree that the best possible starting point will lead to the best possible final result.

However, the intelligent approach to some aspects and forward thinking when shooting will pay dividends ..... In particular the exposure value chosen in order to maximise dynamic range, and careful preservation of highlights will both lead to a superior final image when combined with effective processing.

You need to have a view of the processing steps needed when shooting for certain things, for example an architectural shot that would need perspective corrections would need to be specifically framed wider at capture to allow for the cropping needed after the corrections have been applied. That's not making a mistake or using the computer to fix something, it's just careful planning.

Isn't that what Stu was getting at

I think that could that only be a supposition, in the absence of any specifics in the original post.

I have avoided this as I do with most potentially argumentative threads, however, here is my opinion.

Firstly, I stopped posting images here as the overprocessing stick was aimed in my direction even on some images using my Sigma 10-20 lens on which I had desaturated the blues/greens etc to render the images more 'acceptable, I wasn't insulted I just got bored by the same old same old even when I had desaturated them which I suppose is under processing perhaps.

Yes, I process my images.

It is all simply choice and preference, there is no right or wrong per se which is part of what I love with photography.

And here is my comparison, I have an egg and a potato before me, how many of us will eat them as they are and how many prefer to 'process' them before consumption??

Here we have choice and preference, including the risks of eating them raw, all choice - is your post processing just your brown sauce or cooking then adding salt etc of photography??

Personally, I prefer to look at good or pro this work and work out the pp routine rather than question it.

Im now off to eat a dry tea bag, or maybe I will process it a little

Why do you think the two things are mutually exclusive? There's absolutely no reason why everyone can't strive to capture the image as best they can, then apply processing afterwards.

That's the best quote on this thread so far by a mile! Good on you Stuey, that sums it up for me

Cheers
David

Never ending personal opinion/argument with no answer

Which setting is the correct one? all will produce an OOC image whether it be a jpg, tiff or raw file

I'd challenge anyone to upload a viewable unprocessed raw file to this thread. No one could without processing it first by one means or another. Now there's a challenge for someone!