> There’s nothing that happens when you adjust the contrast or white balance in editing software that the camera hasn’t done under the hood. The edited image isn’t “faker” then the original: they are different renditions of the same data.
Almost, but not quite? The camera works with more data than what's present in the JPG your image editing software sees.
Not quite. At the very least, the RAW file is a static file. Whereas your camera chip can make interactive decisions.
In any case, RAW files aren't even all that raw. First, they are digitised. They often apply de-noising, digital conditioning (to take care of hot and dead pixels), lens correction. Some cameras even apply some lossy compression.
In my experience with the NEF files generated from my Nikon D5500 these RAW files have no denoising at all, no lenas correction, they keep the hot pixels and the RAW compression is visually lossless (I keep 14bits of color data).
Most cameras nowadays offer lossless RAW files, mine is entry level and a bit old already. I fix all of those things you cited through Darktable, which offers a scene referred workflow.
Basically all cameras cameras do offer compression for RAW files, but most times that's just lossless compression (i.e. no data is lost). Do you have any source to back your claims?
Almost, but not quite? The camera works with more data than what's present in the JPG your image editing software sees.