This is an old thread, but it contains much useful information. Many arguments against considering a camera as having a color space are dispelled by this post from the developers of Fast Raw Viewer. In the end, semantics are involved in what is a color space.
Argument 1, Viewing RAW is Impossible
seems silly to me. I've always found BayerDemosaic by Marc Rochkind to be a great teaching tool to illustrate this. For example:http://www.digitaldog.net/files/raw.jpg
Argument 2 "The color on RAW data is wrong"
isn't the same as raw has no color space IMHO. I think we came to agreement here or elsewhere about this. Raw image data is
in some native camera color space, but it is not a colorimetric color space, and has no single “correct” relationship to colorimetry. The piece you outline states:
A RAW image is recorded in the sensor's "color space." So nothing is really new here. As usual, all we need to do is assign proper "color space" to the data.
Ah, so what is that color space?
Argument 3: RAW images are very dark"
. That's of course untrue and the article discusses why. For many years, when doing classes on why we need to have proper profiles assigned to image data, I showed a capture from an old Kodak DCS camera which allowed a gamma 1.0 capture as an option. I would place info palette sample points on the image which at the time was 'assumed' incorrectly to be sRGB. Using Assign Profile command, I would select the ICC profile that defined the data. The numbers didn't change, the image got lighter and appeared correct. So yes, these images are not dark, they are being previewed with the wrong profile.
Interestingly we see the same silly assumptions with Adobe RGB (1998) being 'dull
' instead of sRGB when it is being previewed improperly. The same false ideas about Adobe RGB (1998) and these raw files populate the web. There's nothing wrong with the data. There's something wrong about how the data is interpreted, an incorrect assumed profile.