[Kazuo Honda]

RAW being not an image is a very popular view, but in many ways it is a misconception.
Let’s consider two things.
First, TIFF or JPEG are also open to interpretation, in two ways. In order to interpret JPEG or TIFF, we need metadata, such as color profiles, for example. We need metadata even to know if this TIFF is RGB, LAB, CMY, or something else. We also need algorithms, that is, external knowledge of the format, to decompress a TIFF, to render YCC to RGB in the case of a JPEG, to know what sort of LAB coding was used (because there are more than one), to process layers, masks and channels correctly, etc. The point is, not all the information we need to interpret a format is contained in the file and we can’t interpret a file correctly without use of metadata.

The second thing to keep in mind is that we post-process images, be it TIFF, JPEG, or any other format which you suggest has a “definitive view.” Any image is open to interpretation – not only a RAW image. If I feel like my TIFF file has shadows plugged, I can assign a different gamma to it, and open the shadows, thus overriding the metadata. If I see that the image looks better in sRGB, while it is tagged as Adobe RGB, I can assign sRGB to the image, once again overriding the metadata. RAW image also has metadata and makernote (which are a part of metadata) that go with the image. Metadata/makernote contain definite instructions for image rendition. This metadata and some documentation, which is not as available, as in the case of the TIFF format, is what is used to display a RAW image.

Most of the differences between the interpretations of the RAW file are in the demosaicking algorithms and color transforms. However, all demosaicking algorithms currently in use are well documented, and they do not affect the conversion that much. Those algorithms are responsible only for minute details, like moiré, edge artifacts, and “image sharpness” (acutance). I select my RAW converter based on those differences. One can liken various demosaicking algorithms to different implementations of the same codec.
Color transforms are much more important, but, CFA is a physical object with definite properties, silicon has a well-known spectral response curve, and thus the proper color transform can be definitely calculated.

The above together mean that the difference is mostly in the documentation available, but there is no essential difference between RAW (which actually is either TIFFs or a variation of lossless or even lossy JPEG coding inside) and “true” TIFF or JPEG.

Color management is not a magic bullet that kills all problems. It can’t compensate for differences in color vision, state of mind, amount of coffee, fatigue, changes in ambient light, change in the angle of view (your client looking over your shoulder doesn’t see the same image that you do, and not only because of his color vision is different, but also because he is looking at it from a different angle of view) etc. Any person who ever compared different sheets from a long press, say a sheet number of one thousand to a sheet number of three thousand, can see a substantial difference, because of the stability of the printing press. This of course doesn’t mean that color management is useless. It just means that there is no definitive view even with proper color management.

As to your final statement of this being a digression, perhaps, but you seem to have no issue with discussing it, and it is an interesting topic, so why not continue? ☺

[Kazuo Honda]

I actually avoided using the word “image”, because using that in relation to the word “number” makes things get a little fuzzy.

If we go by the chain of logic of RAW giving no definitive view, then no format can give you a definitive view, because such a view does not even exist – a JPEG is just a collection of bits. The same JPEG will not be displayed the same way on two different monitors, or possibly even perceived the same way on one single monitor, depending on, for instance, the amount of ambient light in the room or the amount of coffee that one has consumed.

But even more, do we even need this definitive view? It doesn’t matter if we show the same image – two different people will react to it differently, because they have different criteria for its merits.

This can be likened to music. RAW data is like the sheet music for a song, while every other processing (development) is an artist’s rendition. Could you say that Joshua Bell preforming Debussy’s The Girl With the Flaxen Hair is the same thing as Heifetz preforming it?

If you put two people in a room, listening to a live performance of somebody playing this piece, even if we managed to put them under the exact same conditions, down to somehow magically making it so they have the same seat, they’ll still experience it differently. Maybe one of them has perfect pitch and can hear that some slight notes are out of key and the other person can’t. Maybe one of them has studied music for 30 years, and disagrees with the interpretation, while the other just likes the pretty sounds.

With RAW, we don’t need a definitive view. What we need is an estimation of composition and technical quality that we can work with.

How can you evaluate the exposure of a JPEG when the camera has already artificially raised it by, sometimes, as much as a couple of stops? How can you evaluate the shadows when they have been plugged? The highlights when they’ve been clipped? The focus when the image has been automatically sharpened?

That is what makes FastRawViewer, in my opinion, so useful. It doesn’t just offer a perception – it offers technical data, and the tools for technical analysis which help to shoot better.

[Kazuo Honda]

[Robby Monk] “The raw footage is coming from my SanDisk Card. It opens in windows media player.”

What kind of footage is it? When you saw “RAW” with all capital letters, that means something that I think you might not intend:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

After Effects, Windows Media Player, and QuickTime all render color differently. You will not see the same thing in all three of these applications.

You are absolutely right. All viewers that show JPEGS display them differently. If you want to actually see the RAW, you need to look at it with a program that actually shows RAW. To my knowledge, there is so far only one program on the market that shows real RAW at high speeds. That is FastRawViewer: it’s a beta-mode program developed specifically to display real RAW and real RAW histogram, as well as give you some tools for technical analysis. Incidentally, I know of no other program that shows actual RAW histograms or even works at this speed – believe me, I’ve tried a wide variety.