Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?

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.
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 picture

Any converter soft ware creates a image for display on the monitor based on
the data from the RAW file. Its Just a raster image and until it is saved
as a jpeg or tiff or anything else That's is all it is. The deference is if
you save your photos in camera as jpeg it does the conversion once and
that's it. Where as the raw can be adjusted by the user in the software to
look as the user want not as is preset for all images in the camera. If you
have Vivid setting turned on by mistake or wrong WB you have it for life.


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?.


Well as a paintshop pro fan I can tell you it does not give much control
over the conversion. The manufactures software may well give better control
(in most cases it does). Third party converts rawtherapee.or such is better
Lightroom Is tops especially if you have more then one brand of camera

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?

It will always have the same conversion for each image right or wrong.
Software on the computer allows you to fine tune the raw data to produce
what you want prior to the conversion but without changing the original raw
data. The adjustments are saved along with the image to recreate the same
output if you want at a later date or you could alter the setting to produce
a different output

Thanks for the discussions