This RAW reveals just how much detail the 6P captures before being smudged by default processing. Subtle blue tones in the leaf, cracking, and fine veins all show through very well. Even more impressive is that this crop is from the edge of the frame, where resolution typically falls short.

Again, the RAW contains far more detail than I would have ever expected from a phone. The built-in processing (JPG) completely mangles the image and destroys all of that detail. I'm beginning to feel really bad for camera engineers who work on phones -- they build a device that punches way above its weight, only to have it all destroyed by the in-camera software.

Complete garbage in the JPG: the trees in the background have become a mush. Their red-brown leaves are muddy gray. The backhoe's yellow-orange is muddy gray. I don't understand why noise reduction is even used here! The RAW noise level is already low.

A 100% crop of a lime. These don't even look like they were taken with the same camera.

A very small (~5mm or 1/4") flower. The texture of the leaves is completely different in the JPG.

RAW: Cat; JPG: Worse cat.

The default noise reduction algorithm has no idea what to think of bricks.

The JPG has completely blown out highlights, total loss of details in the bright areas, and strong blotching / oversharpening in the background.

In the JPG: big changes to metallic surfaces; the out-of-focus areas are oversharpened. Everything is oversharpened.

A macro shot of this sand toy shows built-in noise removal annihilating sparkly bits of sand.

Low-contrast outdoor scene.

More of the same.

The default processing (JPG) tends to make everything look like watercolor. Hopefully everybody prefers that to actual detail.

While the default JPG seems to completely ruin colors of overexposed areas (yellows), these colors are well preserved in the RAW file.

There appears to be aggressive highlight clipping in the default JPG's clouds, but not in the RAW file. Below we'll see if that's true by reducing the exposure 4x (or -2 EV).

Reducing the exposure by 4x shows that the RAW contains far more dynamic range than the default JPG, which harshly clipped the bright areas in the clouds, destroying detail.

An indoor shot of average brightness. The default JPG has applied aggressive noise reduction and then sharpened everything, resulting in smudges with halos. The greens in the plant are gone, too.

A very dark outdoor shot at a moderately high ISO. While the RAW file appears very noisy, it still contains far more detail than the default JPG. Does anybody prefer the JPG? Why is the default processing so afraid of noise?

Same situation as above. The RAW contains more noise, but also contains more detail, color, and intensity range. We can easily see the vague tree line against the night sky.

Even across the whole image, RAW files look better. This is scaled down to 17% of its original size, but the RAW file still shows better color, more detail in the shadows, and no 'crunchy' watercolor effect. It does start to show some strong blue tinting in the shadows, though.

Very dark indoor scene of a dim (~25W) light, overexposed. They're both pretty bad, but the default in-camera processing wanted every detail in the JPG to die.

Some potted plants against a dark window. In-camera processing seems to really hate leaves. It also made the pots look like playdough. Cool?

Indoor shot slightly overexposed. Pay attention to the color of the wood on the cabinet, and the intensity gradient on the bottom white thing (convection oven). The next image lowers the exposure 8x (-3 EV)

With an 8x (-3 EV) lower exposure, the color of the cabinet's wood grain stays true in the RAW, but turns a strange yellow-green in the default JPG. The bottom white thing also shows stronger highlight clipping.

Same image, different place, again with the exposure reduced 8x (-3 EV). The default JPG's oven mitts have completely clipped to white, and we get no more detail out of the countertop's texture. Although the RAW file gives us some room in the highlights, it's not very pleasant ... but I'll take it.

A severely underexposed outdoor night image at moderately high ISO. The RAW file shows more noise as usual (who cares?), but also shows more detail. Let's see what we can get if we adjust the exposure up by 4x (+2 EV) below.

Increasing the exposure 4x (+2 EV): ouch. There is absolutely no more detail to be had in the shadows of the default JPG. Although the RAW file looks unusably noisy, it manages to reveal detail that wasn't visible before. The garage door's windows are much more clear, the strip along the roof is well defined, etc. You can actually identify the roof shingles.

An extremely high ISO night shot in near total darkness. Some 'real' cameras even struggle with noise at more than 3200 ISO. The RAW is ridiculously noisy, but does anyone really prefer the default JPG's smudges? One looks like film grain, the other looks like a disaster.