RAW files generally have no In-camera PP applied to them, as they are RAW "uncooked" data from the sensor,
Raw (not 'RAW', it isn't an acronym) ...
Some camera manufacturers would disagree.
For instance Canon uses "RAW" (all uppercase) in the manual for the 5D mark IV.
Yup, camera manufacturers get very many things wrong. They employ technical authors who think that their purchasers are idiots and everything needs to be dumbed down if they are to understand them, even to the point of telling them things that aren't true, a bit like some members of this forum. 'Raw' is simply an adjective, and there is no reason that it should be written in upper case.
While all uppercase generally indicates an acronym, common usage sometimes deviates. For instance, "scuba" is an acronym (Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus), yet is usually is written in lower case.
So, how many other adjectives do you write in CAPITAL letters? The reason for writing 'raw' in capitals is simply that at some stage a while ago, there were some numbskulls who thought that capital letters were used to denote a computer file type, having only had exposure to one dysfunctional operating system that required them to only use capital letters in file names.
so they are generally flat-looking and a bit soft, but the good ones look a bit better.
They don't 'look' like anything. They are unprocessed, they don't exist in a colour space, they have no colour, no brightness. All they are, is a record of exposure, pixel by pixel. They don;t become a viewable image until processed.
...
If you want to get technical, JPEG images don't 'look' like anything. They are just a file of numbers.
The question is, what do those numbers represent. In a JPEG file (once decompressed) those numbers represent a tonality against a defined standard colour space of each pixel in the image.
However, when we talk about the 'look' of a JPEG we generally talk about how it should appear if it is displayed according to various standard rules.
No, we talk about how it should look if correctly displayed. The numbers in the JPEG file define precisely how it ought to look. The only question is whether the viewer software or hardware gets it right or not.
Similarly, when we talk about the 'look' of a RAW file, we generally mean how it will look if it is displayed using some default settings.
It cannot be displayed using 'default settings'. What is in the raw file is simply a set of exposure measurements. The representation (i.e., which number represents which exposure) and the nature of the wavelength filtering of those exposure measurements varies from camera to camera. There is no set of defaults available.
That "display" is a complicated process as it generally involves demosaicing the data. As such, "displaying" a raw file using "standard" settings, is a bit less deterministic than "displaying" a JPEG file.
That really is nonsense. What you are describing is 'processing', not 'display. Before an image can be 'displayed' it has do be defined in terms of colours and lightnesses. A raw file isn't.
The common element is that you need a context before you can talk about how a set of numbers will look. With JPEG files, that context is better defined than with RAW files.
That all depends on what you mean by 'better defined'. What the numbers means in a JPEG file is defined by an exact and formal specification backed by international standards and underpinned by perceptual research about how we see colour and tonality. It defines exactly how the image represented by those numbers should be presented, and any deviation from that is an error. What's in the raw file determines only how that particular camera measured the scene,
I think the point AmazingLight was making was that using the default settings as his processing context, a RAW file can result in a "flat" and/or "soft" image.
What would those 'default settings be'. Until processed a raw file has no defined meaning, in terms of how you would see the image.
I think your point was that one shouldn't assume any particular context for processing RAW files, and hence it doesn't make sense to talk about what they "look" like. Depending on the processing, they may result in an image that is flat or vibrant, soft or sharp, etc.
No, that wasn't my point. My point was that until processed, a raw file doesn't have any defined human perceptual meaning.
I know that you used to resent digidog getting at you all the time, but when you come up with nonsense like that, I have sympathy with his frustration.
--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob
