Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?

In article
,
wrote:

I am sorry if this topic may have been discussed too many times.
However, I still have difficulties dealing with the concept of RAW
files. Someone suggested that RAW files are like negatives, while-as
JPEG files are like prints.

conceptually yes.

My question is whether we can physically see a RAW file... I mean
without placing it in the mercy of a software to open it as a JPEG
file (and in the mean time, the software is doing the processing and
converting it into JPEG using their own algorithm to produce what they
consider to be the best JPEG. I agree that perhaps people should
create both RAW and JPEG files when they take pictures.

software has to process the jpeg too. the difference is that raw is a
dump of the sensor data and jpeg is processed and lossy compressed. if
you want to adjust the image, it's *much* better to work with the raw
rather than a jpeg that's already lost some information.

The next question is whether commercial photo processing softwares
(Photoshop, Paintshop, Aperture, etc) treating RAW files produced from
different brand cameras differently, as I noticed that the extension
file name for RAW files differ from cameras to cameras. Can the
special software made by the camera's manufacturer (which sometimes
comes with the camera that you purchase) do a better job than the
commercially photo processing softwares?

different raw converters produce different results. which one is best
is *very* subjective. the software that comes with the camera often
does produce a better result because the camera companies know exactly
what the sensor can do, whereas third parties have to figure out some
of it. whether you'll notice a difference and which one you prefer is
another story. adobe now has profiles that match the look of the
camera maker's software.

I recall that someone mentioned that the camera's processing engine is
not as versatile as a computer's photo processing software, as well as
the time to produce the JPEG file in the camera is relatively short.
Therefore, built-in camera processing engine cannot make a better job
than a real photo processing software. As processing speed is getting
faster and faster, could a camera sometime in the future produces JPEG
photos which are as good as or better than the commercial photo
softwares?

given the same parameters, you'll get essentially the same jpeg from
either the camera or the computer. the difference is you aren't stuck
with those settings if you shoot raw. you can decide on different
settings after you shoot, such as white balance. this is really
helpful if you accidentally forget to switch from sunny to indoor, for
example, or if the auto white balance doesn't quite get it right.