This issue is really a PITA. In place of Adobe I would sue the camera manufacturers for keeping such details secret, because what they are doing is closing down the market and forcing the usage of their own software (like MS with IE). The fact that competing raw processors still can survive quite well is the proof, that said manufacturers are suckers in software, it's not an excuse for them.

Anyway, two questions:

1. Are the black level values too "judged" for Canon cameras, or do they come from the raw file, i.e. from MakerNote?

2. Re WhiteLevel: I am sure Mr. Knoll does not need this, I am posting it for others, who may read this thread and don't know the "fine print":

This tag specifies the fully saturated encoding level for the raw sample values. Saturation is caused either by the sensor itself becoming highly non-linear in response, or by the camera's analog to digital converter clipping

The value may depend on the ISO (higher ISO meaning higher WhiteLevel), it may depend on the exposure time, and of course it does depend primarilly on the sensor and the A/D conversion.

However, WhiteLevel in the above interpretation must not depend on the actual image.

I have the feeling, that WhiteLevel has been twisted into the raw equivalent of the original TIFF WhitePoint specification, unnecessarily, because that is not the characteristic of the raw data but of the image post processing.

Am I right with this assumption, or are there cameras, which deliver reliable WhiteLevel in the sense of its definition?