I think we're saying the same thing but my lack of experience with digital photography may have me using terminology that sounds strange. When I said "Then the same, or at least similar corrections, are being made by DPP4 when it opens the raw (.CR2) file." I'm sort of equating that to what you mean when saying "DDP4 gives the same result at the JPEG from the camera because its *default behavior* is to do so". Your point about DPP4 using the metadata to determine what automatic processing, which I called automatic corrections, to perform is a subtlety that I hadn't considered but does make plenty of sense. Insofar as the camera and DPP4 are intended to complement one another this also appears to be a capability that would make sense for DPP4 whereas other more generic image processing software vendors might forgo trying to do such for all the possible cameras they intend to support.
My reason for buying a camera with raw capability was so that I could be able do what you say "but you typically use RAW when you think the automated processing (in-camera or with DPP4, which uses the camera settings encoded in the file metadata) is not going to cut it and you want to do it yourself." If I assume that Canon & the DPP4 developers have the same intention when it comes to raw why do they think it is a help to perform automatic processing on a raw file? I suppose the answer could be "because they can so why not". My speculation was that this, what you call "default behavior", is a reasonable starting point and I'd agree this is fine as long as I can turn it off and work with the unprocessed (i.e. raw?) image. That is what I haven't figured out how to do with DPP4 but I am thinking that is what I come pretty close to getting with UFraw. I've also now looked into Rawtherapee, per your tip, and it looks worth pursuing further. I have a scanner that is capable of producing both color and grayscale in 16bit formats. Support for this has some appeal to me and there is no way to tell when GIMP 2.10 might emerge.
Your point that I have control over how the camera does automatic processing (i.e., "In fact, with DPP4 you can even go the other way:") is something I've not realized but is something I appreciate your advising me about and will definitely want to learn how to do. Many thanks for pointing that out.
I suppose where I'm different than lots of people is that, at present, my motive for doing it myself is to learn how this stuff works rather than the kind of pictures I end up getting. It is entirely possible that I never end up making a better picture than what is produced using the automatic processing but I'll be happier with that outcome when I have a better understanding of the whole process and appreciation for what the automatic processing achieved.
I certainly did not intend to convey the impression that I assumed or expected raw files to be subject to automatic processing. My reason for posting this thread was lack of certainty about what the raw file should look like and therefore whether or not revisions I might make are the only ones in affect. My initial assumption was that DPP4 should be showing it to me. Isn't that where I was wrong?
My reason for buying a camera with raw capability was so that I could be able do what you say "but you typically use RAW when you think the automated processing (in-camera or with DPP4, which uses the camera settings encoded in the file metadata) is not going to cut it and you want to do it yourself." If I assume that Canon & the DPP4 developers have the same intention when it comes to raw why do they think it is a help to perform automatic processing on a raw file? I suppose the answer could be "because they can so why not". My speculation was that this, what you call "default behavior", is a reasonable starting point and I'd agree this is fine as long as I can turn it off and work with the unprocessed (i.e. raw?) image. That is what I haven't figured out how to do with DPP4 but I am thinking that is what I come pretty close to getting with UFraw. I've also now looked into Rawtherapee, per your tip, and it looks worth pursuing further. I have a scanner that is capable of producing both color and grayscale in 16bit formats. Support for this has some appeal to me and there is no way to tell when GIMP 2.10 might emerge.
Your point that I have control over how the camera does automatic processing (i.e., "In fact, with DPP4 you can even go the other way:") is something I've not realized but is something I appreciate your advising me about and will definitely want to learn how to do. Many thanks for pointing that out.
I suppose where I'm different than lots of people is that, at present, my motive for doing it myself is to learn how this stuff works rather than the kind of pictures I end up getting. It is entirely possible that I never end up making a better picture than what is produced using the automatic processing but I'll be happier with that outcome when I have a better understanding of the whole process and appreciation for what the automatic processing achieved.
I certainly did not intend to convey the impression that I assumed or expected raw files to be subject to automatic processing. My reason for posting this thread was lack of certainty about what the raw file should look like and therefore whether or not revisions I might make are the only ones in affect. My initial assumption was that DPP4 should be showing it to me. Isn't that where I was wrong?