Naturally. When those are displayed they generally are not claimed to be "raw" as opposed to processed images, as was the case in the post to which I replied which compared one image as "processed" to another image labeled as "raw".
Yeah, but those are indeed āimageā files. A RAW file is fundamentally different and thatās clearly the point (an important one) that some people are trying to make - that, unlike a jpeg, if an image from a raw file looks a particular way in your editor, it is the processing applied by the that editor that is primarily responsible. The RAW file itself really only represents a potential image to be. Seems like a distinction that shouldnāt just be swept under the rug.
Im excited the penny has dropped. but im sorry for all those that it hasnt yet , im going to leave you all in limbo until you can figure it out for yourself šš
a lolly pop to the first person that can show how the histogram is related to the image i posted. in 1 sentence, and how they arrived at there conclusion.
i will drop a hint. open many images . mine was easy with opening only 2 . this one and the other one. and i didnt move the EV0 point.
But it's the engineers who really know what they are talking about and how things work properly, not the marketing people. Marketing people tend to dumb things down, even to the point where it is not technically correct, for 'mum and dad' photographers.