The K3 III in the comparison tool

flektogon wrote:

Yes Jeremie, I agree with what you wrote:

To me it's very relevant what parameters a raw converter applies by default, exactly because as you said it's the reference you start from. If it's f**** because the raw converter applied crazy sharpening generating awful artifacts, then it's a problem and exactly what you want to avoid when you shoot RAW.

Most raw converters do not apply a crazy amount of sharpening.

You may have one converter that is set to 40 while the other is set to 10 and they sharpen the image similarly. Just as with a stereo from one unit it may be set to 10 and another set to 40 the output volume is similar

But at first let's assume that no photo editor opens a raw file such a way that it is already damaged

You are not destroying or damaging you are processing data to an output image

If you look at a raw file there is not much to look at what you see int the image using raw converter you are looking at only the processing done to that image

So, it opens the raw file and will show you a picture. And yes, this is the starting point of your process. Once you have a likeable result, you will save it. If you save it as a jpeg file (what I am doing), all those parameter values you used (like the sharpening amount) are irrelevant, they won't be saved as a part of the jpeg data!

Why would you want to save that data? you are processing that data into an image and that jpeg is the processed data

Jpeg usually is the final step in the processing, this is saving how you want the image to appear. does it matter what processing is done to a film negative to achieve a working print? no.

many raw converters allow the user to save the processing settings done while retaining the raw data.

Only if you save your processed image as another (or replacing original) raw file, those processing parameters will be saved, as the original data taken from the sensor won't be touched at all.

very few converters allow the user to replace the raw data, and again why would you want too, what is fascination with what setting are being done to the raw file the need to store it in the jpeg file ?

You would not want to make changes to a film negative to alter it only to save it as another negative. With digital raw it is no different we have a negative we apply processing to the negative, we record what those processing setting ( with film we would write down what was done and store it with the negative or use a default without heavy Developmemt ) with digital we store that data using a sidecar or even exporting those setting into a note doc if we every want to go back process the raw data again

And that's it. So, the conclusion of this entire debate is, that it is irrelevant how your (renowned) editor opens the raw file, you should be able to process it to whatever result you want to get!

You can you and that is the whole reason for raw converters, you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Jpeg is your final image as to how you want it processed