Fifer Loc: Ontario, Canada

My initial post was driven by my curiosity about the ability, or lack thereof, of various image viewers to correctly view raw files that had accompanying sidecar xmp files. I understood fairly quickly that these viewers did not read the xmp files, and that should have been the end of it. However, as is often the case on UHH, we got off on a tangent talking about the terms editing and processing.

It's interesting that even Adobe refers to Lightroom (in all its iterations) as a photo editing app or image editing program. Most of the photographers/educators on YouTube talk about editing their (usually) raw photos with Lightroom or some other similar program.
One source that I read talks about editing as the more "technical" changes to things such as exposure, contrast, clarity, etc. In other words, moving the sliders around in LR to get a more pleasing result. He uses processing to refer to "creative" changes such as colour grading, adding sunflare, etc. That is obviously a useful distinction for him.

Regardless, I think it's somewhat hair-splitting to be concerned about the use of the words processing or editing - both terms get used, perhaps loosely and often interchangeably, but I think that most people understand what is being referred to by either word.
The other area where I see processing used more often is the steps involved in interpreting/converting the data in the raw file so that an image file is produced. Different apps process the raw data differently so the same raw file processed by Lightroom can apparently look slightly different from the result processed in say Capture One. The term "raw processor" is commonly used to describe the engine that processes the raw file into a viewable image.

I'm not really disagreeing with you User ID, I'm just saying that editing and processing are terms used by many people to describe the same actions - making changes to the image that shows on the screen, with of course the understanding that these changes are only applied when the file is exported as a jpeg or other format. Adobe also describes LR as a "nondestructive" editor (not processor) for that reason. I know, and I know that you also know, that the original raw file is untouched by all that editing/processing.

You are no doubt correct that there will now follow several pages of comments by the so-called experts who disagree with my comments.

I appreciate your comments.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

To confuse things further, EDITING is a term used to connote CULLING, the process of sorting through all the files you made at the camera to find and rate the ones you want to DEVELOP from raw (think: Lightroom Classic's Library module). Just as a 20th century newspaper section editor took more stories than they had space for and fit them around the ads that paid the bills, a photo editor found the relevant images by sorting through contact sheets, marking the ones to print. Then they handed the sheet to the darkroom worker who made the prints. Then they would crop the finished prints and send them to be processed as halftones...

In short, the editor did no photo processing (in most newspaper offices). Now, all of that is done in one or two programs.

Fifer Loc: Ontario, Canada

That is certainly one valid interpretation of editing, but it isn't the only one. Terminology can be confusing at times can't it?
I would still maintain that most users of LR and similar programs talk about editing their photos to mean making changes to exposure, contrast, white balance, cropping, etc. Some people use the term processing to mean the same thing.
In the long run, does it really matter what we call it?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

No. In fact, I use all the terms rather loosely. But my senses tell me that processing includes cull editing, raw development, and everything else I do to go from file to image display or printing.

Fifer Loc: Ontario, Canada

I probably use the terms interchangeably, but most of the time use editing to mean all the changes that I apply to an image with the sliders in LR, or the use of other tools such as cropping, straightening, transforming, spot removal, red eye reduction. etc. Very few people would have trouble understanding what I mean when I say I edit my photos in LR. But occasionally I will say post processing, and to me I am talking about the same changes to the image listed above.
There is definitely a blurring of any distinction between the two terms, but in my opinion it gets somewhat pedantic to absolutely insist on a restricted definition of either term - and I am not suggesting that you belong in that camp!
An interesting discussion.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I spent most of my career in the school portrait and yearbook industry. In the old film lab, we did film processing, pose (cull) editing, printing and paper processing, and print finishing as separate operations, each in a different department. We developed black-and-white film at one point, but we *processed* color negative films and papers, because they require development plus bleaching, fixing, and stabilizing. The digital lab had parallels to all these things *except* cull and pose editing and cropping, which was done at the camera, on a tethered PC, by our photographers, using our proprietary software. There were many other functions in the 90,000 square footd lab, too. The over-arching term we used for everything was "photo finishing."

Effectively, most of that work can be done in Lightroom Classic, including everything that happens except print finishing.

Post processing is a shopping cart term that includes a lot of things...

Fifer Loc: Ontario, Canada

You certainly have an extensive background in film photography, so I can see why your interpretation of the terms editing and post processing is different from mine (my experience is only in digital photography).
As I said in an earlier post, the majority of YouTube videos by photographers/educators (too many to list, but mostly familiar names) use the term editing. That doesn't make it any more correct than processing, but it is more commonly used.
It's good to have a civil discussion.

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

I secretly suspect but definitely can’t prove that viewers and CODECs for OS just show a preview that is stored in the raw file. All files raw or jpeg have jpeg previews stored in the file. Even if set to store full sized raw images only the camera does all of its processing in order to display on the screen and stores the raw screen image as a lower resolution jpeg so you can view previous shots on the screen. The camera stores no images within the camera elsewhere. Just as it stores a screen ready thumbnail. I suppose a third party editor could replace the preview with an edited version but that is dangerous to the file format. By policy Adobe will not modify original raw files. A good move.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

CODECs are simple programs that allow your OS to display the preview image contained in a raw file. They DO NOT process the raw data in order to form the image since that takes the application of parameters which, although they may be included in the metadata of the file containing the raw data, do not contain any edited parameters. (Some DNG files may have the preview replaced by a preview showing the edits, but only if the DNG was edited by a program capable of such). So for the most part, a CODEC will show you the embedded preview.

Viewers, on the other hand vary widely. Some of them may be able to extract the edit parameters from an associated XMP file and apply a demosaicing process using those parameters. I have not seen a list of which programs are capable of that. I don't know if any really are capable, although there are online claims that some programs do. I have not seen any proof of that.

Editors for the most part will not change the preview embedded in the raw file (absent the DNG possibility mentioned above). No editor will change the raw data contained in the raw file.

Fifer Loc: Ontario, Canada

I know that LR and other editors do not change the raw data and I have never claimed that they do.
The image viewers that I tried obviously are not capable of extracting info from the xmp files. My curiosity is now satisfied and I have no intention of switching from LR for my photo editing needs.
I do use dng files from time to time, but again almost all my viewing is done in LR.
Thanks for your comments.