[normhead]

Short answer, sure you can get a great Raw Image. I've had raw images come off the camera that required no PP work and were just fine that way. The DR of the scene was perfectly matched to the DR of the sensor. Exposure on the histogram was perfect, saturation and contrast were excellent. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. A fluke confluence of quality of light matching up with the capability of the sensor. I think that's what you were asking. I have no idea what everyone else is going on about.

[RioRico]

Short answer, sure you can get a great Raw Image. I've had raw images come off the camera that required no PP work and were just fine that way.

Such images are developed according to your camera or RAW developer settings, and/or factory defaults if you use them. Going from RAW to JPG or TIF or whatever involves PP: development. Development means using some subset of the RAW data captured by the sensor. Every RAW image requires PP, or it's nothing. That's just how this stuff works, eh?

[normhead]

Such images are developed according to your camera or RAW developer settings, and/or factory defaults if you use them. Going from RAW to JPG or TIF or whatever involves PP: development. Development means using some subset of the RAW data captured by the sensor. Every RAW image requires PP, or it's nothing. That's just how this stuff works, eh?

Me thinks thee might be getting a wee bit semantical there Mr. Roco

Is it possible to have a perfect RAW photo? Or does it have to be fiddled with (white balance ect) when its converted to JPEG?
And also do we rely too heavily on post processing and consider it normal?

I don't think he was asking "can you take the 1s and 0's output by your camera's sensor to produce an image without any interpretation?" After all you could dump them and display them as a series of one and zeros, as a numerical pattern, and not a picture at all. There would be no purpose in asking such a question. He is asking, if you can take a RAW image from your camera and have any hope that it will be printable. The fact that it is a "RAW photo" implies that the in camera RAW processing has already been done. The RAW data without interpretation is not a photo.

The answer to the second part of the question would be..

Without post processing, what you have is a picture interpreted by a set of technical specs that best represent the setting you'd use for an "average" photograph as interpreted by the camera manufacturer. It may create an "average version" of what you saw, but not really what you saw. If what stood out for you was the red in a sunset, you have to do what it takes to bring out that red, so that the viewer understands why you took the picture. If some of the elements had an emotional impact, you need to emphasize them in PP so they have the same emotional impact in the print they did in real life. You have to be moved by something in the scene to take the picture, then you have to create the same (or some other effect)* in the photograph so it moves the viewer. The average settings provided by the camera manufacturer are very unlikely to do that.

* You can just as easily look at a scene that means something on it's own, but then subvert that meaning into something not present in the original, through optical illusion. That in itself is part fo the art of photography.

[PPPPPP42]

Originally I was under the impression that the camera could convert the raw sensor data into an image without making ANY adjustments or interpretations, just see the light, record the light, rather like film. So if I were to get the lighting and crop perfect in the shot, then its perfect on the film.
But apparently that is not the case since there's more than one way for the sensor to see the light because of camera settings (ISO ect.) which I suppose is just a way to tell the camera digitally what film you are using (some are warmer or colder and the obvious ISO differences).

So I guess you probably can't get a perfect raw file, but you can perfectly program the camera settings to put out a file that needs no PP assuming you frame it correctly and get the exposure right when taking it.

[eddie1960]

no different than film there is always several ways to expose a scene. See ansel adams zone system

[GeneV]

Rico has it right. If you want any more proof, use several different raw processors on the same raw data and see the difference.

[Marc Sabatella]

Originally I was under the impression that the camera could convert the raw sensor data into an image without making ANY adjustments or interpretations, just see the light, record the light, rather like film.

It is exactly as true for digital as for film, but also as completely irrelevant. Sure, there is only one way a given image is goong to be recorded to a given frame of film when shot with given aperture, shutter speed. But different films will record that same image differently - and I'm not just talking about diffeent ISO levels, but also daylight versus tungsten film, also velvia versus kodacrhome versus any of dozens of other formulations. Plus, take that same film to ten different developers and see if you don't get ten different images!

[eddie1960]

It is exactly as true for digital as for film, but also as completely irrelevant. Sure, there is only one way a given image is goong to be recorded to a given frame of film when shot with given aperture, shutter speed. But different films will record that same image differently - and I'm not just talking about diffeent ISO levels, but also daylight versus tungsten film, also velvia versus kodacrhome versus any of dozens of other formulations. Plus, take that same film to ten different developers and see if you don't get ten different images!

Well processors shouldn't affect Slide output, but any printing is pretty much the film equivalent of post processing a raw file.

[RioRico]

So I guess you probably can't get a perfect raw file, but you can perfectly program the camera settings to put out a file that needs no PP assuming you frame it correctly and get the exposure right when taking it.

Again, just converting the RAW file to a visible image *is* PP. Neither a RAW file nor and exposed film frame are images. They are *potential* images, with many different ways of becoming manifest. And developing a RAW file consists of throwing away much of the captured data. Those "perfectly program[ed] camera settings" just specify which data is being discarded. Other settings might result in different but quite acceptable images.

One of my rants: What you think you see, and what you want to see, and what the camera+lens see, and what's actually there (if anything), are NOT the same. There ain't no perfect settings, just settings (in-camera or in-development or otherwise in-PP) that produce different images, many of which may be quite acceptable for various purposes. PP is integral to the image-making process. Without PP, there ain't no image.

[Anvh]

So I guess you probably can't get a perfect raw file, but you can perfectly program the camera settings to put out a file that needs no PP assuming you frame it correctly and get the exposure right when taking it.

Where comes the idea come from that perfect = doing no pp?

[SpecialK]

Where comes the idea come from that perfect = doing no pp?

It's the commonly-used idea of "perfect", as in it needs no adjustment. Of course "perfect", as with beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

[RioRico]

It's the commonly-used idea of "perfect", as in it needs no adjustment.

Of course a 'perfect' shot happens because of adjustments made somewhere along the line: by the design engineers if the factory defaults are used; by the user when any twiddling has occurred; by the PP'er as needed. Those adjustments may be invisible to the user at the moment they punch the shutter, but they exist anyway. Someone must decide which data to throw away when producing a usable image. Apparently 'perfection' means "I didn't do it".

Oh, but if I get my JPG settings right, then it's perfect, right? No, because those settings are still interpreted by the RAW developer, either in-camera on in-computer. As was mentioned, different RAW warez interpret settings differently and produce different images. Perfection is so fleeting, eh?

An old homily: Only death is perfect. Life is just a universe of approximations.

[SpecialK]

Of course a 'perfect' shot happens because of adjustments made somewhere along the line: by the design engineers if the factory defaults are used; by the user when any twiddling has occurred; by the PP'er as needed. Those adjustments may be invisible to the user at the moment they punch the shutter, but they exist anyway. Someone must decide which data to throw away when producing a usable image. Apparently 'perfection' means "I didn't do it".

Oh, but if I get my JPG settings right, then it's perfect, right? No, because those settings are still interpreted by the RAW developer, either in-camera on in-computer. As was mentioned, different RAW warez interpret settings differently and produce different images. Perfection is so fleeting, eh?

An old homily: Only death is perfect. Life is just a universe of approximations.

You have no argument from me on the subject, simply pointing out the common usage if the term. Of course there is in-camera processing designed by engineers, but that is not really what the OP is asking about.

[Lowell Goudge]

Is it possible to have a perfect RAW photo? Or does it have to be fiddled with (white balance ect) when its converted to JPEG?
And also do we rely too heavily on post processing and consider it normal?

I started playing with film cameras again, suddenly all the DSLR stuff I take for granted now seems rather fiddly. Do they actually design the camera to produce a perfect RAW image so long as the exposure is correct, or is it deliberately intended to be adjusted either by the camera or PP afterwards?

I seem to recall correctly framing the photo when I took it rather than rotating or cropping after and getting the exposure right the first time to be standard procedure back in the day, no color adjustments necessary. With digital I feel like I've gotten lazy and sloppy all of a sudden.

No it is impossible,

RAW is the data right out of the sensor, it needs to be treated, as a function of the ambient light color temperature and compensated for the contrast of the scene, as a minimum..

that's where jpeg settings come in,. many programs can import the JPEG settings and if you pay attention to what you are doing, the image is dam close to perfect. the only advantage, once you reach this level of proficiency is you can do alternate processing on the RAW data if you so decide, where as if you shot JPEG you are somewhat limited.

BTW, film is closer to JPEG than RAW, because the film , by selecting it, has already predetermined the noise level, color casts tonal range and contrast to a large extent.

[Anvh]

It's the commonly-used idea of "perfect", as in it needs no adjustment. Of course "perfect", as with beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

precisely but beside that perfect also depends on what you want to archive.
I often shoot to do PP later on the file so i try to maximize information captures rather then get the photo as close as i can in camera.