Yeah this what I immediately think too any time I see an article like this. Adjustments like contrast and saturation are plausible to show before/after, but before any sort of tone curve makes no sense unless you have some magic extreme HDR linear display technology (we don't). Putting linear data into 0-255 pixels which are interpreted as SRGB makes no sense whatsoever. You are basically viewing junk. It's not like that's what the camera actually "sees". The camera sees a similar scene to what we see with our eyes, although it natively stores and interprets it differently to how our brain does (i.e. linear vs perceptual).

In the article adjusting for the range makes quite a small difference compared to the other steps.

Don't you think you're being a bit too pedantic? Nothing really "sees". Eyes also do gather light and the brain analyzes the signals. We've invented a word for it but the word is a high level abstraction that could easily be applied to a camera sensor as well.

You missed the point. I could say more, but not to some random person who chooses to insult me.

Saying you're being too pedantic is an insult? Wasn't intended to be.

Random ad hominem criticisms from strangers are insulting. Stick to substance and stop insulting people and then pretending you didn't.

Over and out.

At some point after ever conversation terminates in you getting a "random ad hominem" you have to re-evaluate the thought process that led you to that point.