When a new camera reaches the market one of the most discussed subjects is if the color it records is the same, better, or worse compared to a previous model. It often happens that the color is evaluated based on the rendering provided by some RAW converter. That is, an unknown parameter, that being the color profiles or transforms that a RAW converter uses for these models, comes into play. Another problem with such comparisons is that often they are based on shots taken with different lenses, under different light, and with effectively different exposures in RAW (while in fact the exposure settings itself may be the same).

Let's have a look how cameras compare in RAW if the set-up is kept very close to the same and the exposure in RAW is equalized.

So here's a question - is it really necessary that one look at RAW when you're selecting RAW files, whether to convert or to present? Isn't a preview enough? You might not know exactly what settings were applied to it, but so what? What's so untrustworthy about embedded and rendered JPEGs and previews? And what's wrong with the preview and histogram on the back of the camera?

All these questions and more will be answered, and we intend on top of that to show how large of a gulf there is between real RAW data and the previews of it.

Very often images that are technically fine are being tossed out, and technically inferior ones are kept. Why? Because people aren't shown the truth about RAW. Here, we intend to show why people need to see and analyze actual RAW data, in advance of choosing which images to discard and which to keep and edit.