Art or reality? Duty to disclose pp? (Page 2): Most people never see a ‘raw’ file {I suppose I should say “files”, since in most cases one needs original file + ‘sidecar’}; with the...

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

R.G. wrote:

You're assuming that raw data can't be tampered with. I'm not going to make any such assumption. Some people have enough knowhow to make their own editors and don't need proprietary editors. Skills like that won't be common but they won't be unheard of either.

Most people never see a ‘raw’ file {I suppose I should say “files”, since in most cases one needs original file + ‘sidecar’}; with the possible exception of DNG, ‘raw’ is not a standard, and a viewer lacks the ability to view it. For example, I did have Canon at one time, but not now, so I could view CR2 files at one time, but I would be surprised if I could view a Nikon, Sony, or Olympus files, which is why people are generally most interested in JPG and PNG files.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

rehess wrote:

Most people never see a ‘raw’ file; with the possible exception of DNG, ‘raw’ is not a standard, and a viewer lacks the ability to view it. For example, I did have Canon at one time, but not now, so I could view CR2 files at one time, but I would be surprised if I could view a Nikon, Sony, or Olympus files, which is why people are generally most interested in JPG and PNG files.

Huh??

Most of us are using commercial and up-to-date operating systems on our name-brand computers, tablets and similar. Most of these operating systems, at least those keeping their OS current, can 'see' the embedded JPEG inside every RAW file.

Seeing the RAW data in the unsharpened, unprocessed, desaturated version, yes, that might require a third-party digital editor that presents the 'real' RAW version of the image, not the embedded and processed JPEG, nor the camera defaults applied auto-magically to the RAW.

But, all those technical details have nothing to do with why anyone would choose JPEG / HEIC / other over RAW as a shooting format.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

btbg wrote:

Just because a photo has been post processed does ... (show quote)

Yes, even when covering the Olympics journalists are allowed to modify ‘plumb’, crop, exposure - things that wouldn’t change the truth being shown, but would get into trouble if they painted an orange bridge green or added a rubber duckie to a scene.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

CHG_CANON wrote:

Simply assume all photos are processed. Certainly, any real photographer -- outside of reporting / documentary work -- is capturing in RAW and processing those images before sharing. That's just a fundamental of digital photography, and a basic requirement of RAW.

Needing to 'say' what occurred along with sharing an image?? That's just loser talk. People creating false 'rules' to try to limit the success of others, aka real photographers ...

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

CHG_CANON wrote:

Huh?? br br Most of us are using commercial and u... (show quote)

Part of my point is that people act as though ‘raw’ were a type, just as JPG, PNG, and HEIC are. It is really a group of types - CR2, etc. Since I have been using Linux for some time, I don’t claim to understand what a typical Mac or Win user can read. I routinely use ‘gimp’ to translate HEIC files to JPG.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

CHG_CANON wrote:

Would the engineers inside the camera manufacture have the highest probability of knowing if the read-only data could be edited? And how to do it? It's not structured to be modified; not just a "protect" flag stopping editing.

One can alter (edit) the binary data in any file. One simply has to know where what data resides in order to do so. Many years ago I used a program called Hex Edit. It was a file editor that simply presented the file contents in Hexadecimal and allowed one to alter the contents, then save the changes. I used to pull and print a list of email addresses out of my saved email address book file.
WAY too much trouble for me to play with data on that level now.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

rehess wrote:

The difference is in sentient control. I set the parameters when I set up the camera and use the same parameters for every shot; no intelligence looks at the shot and decides how to process it depending on how it appears. If one shot is “too dark”, then that is true of every shot. In that sense, it is not processed ‘subjectively’.

The camera operator has limited input control over the camera software's image processing and makes choices that affect the appearance of the image. For example setting exposure parameters or selecting one or another of the camera's input profiles. Those choices on the part of the camera operator are subjective.

The camera engineers in designing and programming the camera's software made numerous choices to control how that software affects the appearance of the image. For example they chose how the demosaicing algorithm renders fine detail in the image. They created the input profiles the camera applies to an image that affect it's color rendition and tonal response. Those choices on the part of the camera engineers are subjective. If you're going to set the camera to produce an output image (JPEG) then subjective choices made by the camera's engineers and the camera operator MUST be applied.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Longshadow wrote:

One can alter (edit) the binary data in any file. One simply has to know where what data resides in order to do so. Many years ago I used a program called Hex Edit. It was a file editor that simply presented the file contents in Hexadecimal and allowed one to alter the contents, then save the changes. I used to pull and print a list of email addresses out of my saved email address book file.
WAY too much trouble for me to play with data on that level now.

At one time, the company I worked for used an IBM database, which occasionally goofed. I learned to use a Hex editor to fix the database - that was a mistake! On several occasions I found myself going in on Saturday {it was an all-day process and we couldn’t have the DB unavailable during a work-day while I fixed the DB}.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Longshadow wrote:

One can alter (edit) the binary data in any file. One simply has to know where what data resides in order to do so. Many years ago I used a program called Hex Edit. It was a file editor that simply presented the file contents in Hexadecimal and allowed one to alter the contents, then save the changes. I used to pull and print a list of email addresses out of my saved email address book file.
WAY too much trouble for me to play with data on that level now.

It needs to be undetected. Wasn't that the requirement?

Yes, the image data is stored on a bits & bytes format, like all digital files. But, accessing the data supporting even 1-pixel in an 24MP image requires an update to the three RGB channels of that one pixel. And, that don't change what the human would / could see, except for maybe creating a visual 'dead pixel', or at least, one that doesn't fit the color flow / shading.

Making a visual and relevant and seemless manipulation of the RAW image content, maybe in the future, not one I could yet forecast ...

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Ysarex wrote:

The camera operator has limited input control over... (show quote)

I don’t know how the camera you use works, but I use Pentax, which has very specific adjustments - to contrast, color rendition, etc, so it is a simple matter to adjust the rendition so it matches what I saw. Once I get it right, that rendition is always applied, and {like film} I know {when I press the shutter} what I’m going to get. Virtually never do I feel a need to ‘adjust’ the result in PP. You can call that “subjective” if you want to.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

CHG_CANON wrote:

It needs to be undetected. Wasn't that the require... (show quote)

How would changing bits in a file be detectable??? Only if one were to do a bit-for-bit comparison of the two files.

Well, I did say one simply has to know where what data resides, add and what to change, as well as what not to change.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Longshadow wrote:

Well, I did say one simply has to know where what data resides, add and what to change, as well as what not to change.

The software engineers at (inside) the camera manufacturers don't even feel interested in this task ...

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

rehess wrote:

I don’t know how the camera you use works, but I use Pentax, which has very specific adjustments - to contrast, color rendition, etc, so it is a simple matter to adjust the rendition so it matches what I saw. Once I get it right, that rendition is always applied, and {like film} I know {when I press the shutter} what when I what I’m going to get. Virtually never do I feel a need to ‘adjust’ the result in PP. You can call that “subjective” if you want to.

The processing that occurs in the camera is post processing. You have limited choices over some aspects of that processing, the engineers who programmed your camera software also exercised choices over that processing and did not provide you with access to adjust all of what they did. Your choices and their choices amount to subjective post processing required to create an image.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

CHG_CANON wrote:

The software engineers at (inside) the camera manufacturers don't even feel interested in this task ...

Of course not!
Back then I was a computer geek.
I, and some friends, were computer geeks WAY before the term was coined!
I and a few of my friends basically spoke Hex.

I even added an "Exclusive Or" function to BASIC in the DOS ROM in the Color Computer disk controller.
I wrote test programs for ICs and semiconductors, so I programmed one test system to burn ROMs & E(E)proms.
Result=EXOR(argument1, argument2)
Fun times!!!!!!!

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Ysarex wrote:

The processing that occurs in the camera is post processing. You have limited choices over some aspects of that processing, the engineers who programmed your camera software also exercised choices over that processing and did not provide you with access to adjust all of what they did. Your choices and their choices amount to subjective post processing required to create an image.

The amount and impact of "buried" post processing is very camera dependent. It varies drastically from model to model made by the same nanufacturer. It also varies based on when the camera was manufactured. The amount of control over processing in the camera that I bought in 2007 is drastically more limited than the control of the equivalent model camera I purscased in 2019.

I get burned here for making statements judged by others to be "too general." You are doing the same thing.