Maxpixel wrote:
I have a quibble about the term “post processing.” Why not just call it “processing?” We say film is processed, not post processed, so why would processing of a RAW image be any different? Now if I processed a jpg image, which is already a processed image, I can see why that could be called post processing. I thought UHH would be the perfect place to resolve this semantic issue!
Post processing refers to what happens in electronic workflows. Video post-processing is what happens after recording the video. It's all the stuff we do to make an image ready for presentation. If you correctly expose and process JPEGs in-camera, there is no post processing. It's already done. But if you save the raw data (which always includes a camera-baked JPEG preview image), what you do later, whether in the camera or in a computer, is post-processing.
Raw post processing workflows include development (demosaicing to a bitmap), application of a camera profile to the bitmap, application of parametric adjustments to the bitmap (exposure, brightness, contrast, hue, saturation, color temperature, response curves, etc. ad nauseam), and any "finishing" done in a bitmap editor such as Photoshop. That could include titling, cropping, rotation, sharpening, filtering, etc. and removal of blemishes or flaws. The list is endless, really.
In "Film world," processing usually refers to color film. Both black-and-white and color films are developed. But color films require many more reactions besides development and fixing. For slides, there's a reversal bath, wash, color developer, bleach, fix, wash, and stabilizer. For negative films, there's bleach, fix, wash, and stabilizer. In modern processes, some of those steps may be combined. "Processing" is, indeed, a multi-step affair, and the distinction is complexity.