That's not how I read it. As in, this is an incidental comment. But the unprocessed version is the raw values from the sensors visible in the first picture, the processed are both the camera photo and his attempt at the end.

▲

eloisius 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This whole post read like and in-depth response to people that claim things like “I don’t do any processing to my photos” or feel some kind of purist shame about doing so. It’s a weird chip some amateur photographers have on their shoulders, but even pros “process” their photos and have done so all the way back until the beginning of photography.

	▲	Edman274 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Is it fair to recognize that there is a category difference between the processing that happens by default on every cell phone camera today, and the time and labor intensive processing performed by professionals in the time of film? What's happening today is like if you took your film to a developer and then the negatives came back with someone having airbrushed out the wrinkles and evened out skin tones. I think that photographers back in the day would have made a point of saying "hey, I didn't take my film to a lab where an artist goes in and changes stuff."

▲

svara 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But mapping raw values to screen pixel brightness already entails an implicit transform, so arguably there is no such thing as an unprocessed photo (that you can look at).

Conversely the output of standard transforms applied to a raw Bayer sensor output might reasonably be called the "unprocessed image", since that is what the intended output of the measurement device is.

	▲	Edman274 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Would you consider all food in existence to be "processed", because ultimately all food is chopped up by your teeth or broken down by your saliva and stomach acid? If some descriptor applies to every single member of a set, why use the descriptor at all? It carries no semantic value.