Well, not exactly.
Obviously if you tried to review completely unprocessed raw data captured in a system with a Bayer mask, it will look like crap. The raw data MUST be processed in some amount to be an image. There are tweaks every camera manufacturer puts into their camera's processing optimized for that camera. Compare in-camera sharpening with Photoshop and see the difference. There is also processing to account for non-linear (or non-logarithmic, depending on the function) response profiles of any particular semiconductor. Film also has non-perfect characteristic curves, and film manufacturers are always tweaking them.
Also, "more" data is not always better. In the realities of life, there are storage, processing time,
download time, even image loading and rendering time. I keep 2GB of physical memory on my machines, and editing 11x17 images with a dozen layers at 400dpi for a calendar recently taxed it to the point that my workflow was slowed down. Shooting RAW files slows down my workflow, just like shooting with the Hassy or 4x5 limits me in some ways, but gives me more "data" and I do it when it is needed. Remember, makeup is a way to record less "data" by hiding blemishes in otherwise unblemished skin.
When the extra data is necessary and outweighs the negatives, it makes sense then to do it. Other times, it doesn't. That is only a call that the individual photographer can make. There is no "always right" answer. One of my favorite images in my portfolio was shot with the Hassy on Polaroid - not traditional film. Who'd of thunk it?
You can also reach a point of diminishing returns. When sanding a coffee table, you work down to 200 fine grit paper last. To go further to 400 to 600 garnet paper will give you such minor better results that it can't be appreciated without a microscope. So is it worth it?
Also, sometimes my desire is to manipulate an image in a certain fashion in the computer, and I intentionally expose or alter the taking of the picture so certain data is intentionally lost - such as highlight or shadow detail... or sometimes fine resolution (remember soft focus filters?... I mean the glass ones you put on the lens). Losing that data is necessary because my post production manip will produce desired results on part of the image and undesired results on another. It is easier to loose it with the exposure, rather than try to work with the lasso and remove it the computer later.
The Headless Model