Micro 4/3 Raw data - why so different between review sites?

Doug Pardee

New Member
I'm not a Panasonic user, so please pardon my ignorance. I'm working on a Raw file converter (LightZone), and I've encountered what seems to be an anomaly.

I'm finding very significant differences in the Raw files from some Panasonic compacts that are being posted by DPReview versus those posted by Imaging Resource. It appears that the Raw files from DPReview are flat, lacking in contrast.

I first ran across this with the GF2. I had calibrated LightZone against DPReview's "studio scene" Raw file. I had to recalibrate because of user complaints that the result was way too contrasty. Since then, I've found that the users' results seem to be consistent with the test scene Raw file from Imaging Resource.

Now I'm working on Raw files from the G3, and again I calibrated to DPReview's "studio scene" Raw file. Then I checked how it looked against the test scene Raw file from Imaging Resource. I found that here too, the calibration based on DPReview's Raw file resulted in extreme contrast on Imaging Resource's Raw file.

Doing a straight conversion using dcraw, the Raw files from Imaging Resource both look good. The Raw files from DPReview both look flat. Obvious conclusion: Imaging Resource's files are good, DPReview's are off.

I haven't yet looked at other Panasonic models, but I haven't seen this situation with other brands.

Is there something that DPReview might be doing that is causing their Raw files to come out so flat? Or is there another explanation for these results that I'm ignorant of? Thanks for any enlightenment you can send my way.

Doug Pardee

New Member
I haven't asked them yet. I'm still trying to sort out what's happening. At this point I'm mainly wondering if the Panasonic compacts have any settings that might affect Raw files.