Totally agree!

Everyone who uses a digital camera shoots raw. Some make the deliberate choice to allow the camera to process those images into jpegs using predetermined camera settings which are seldom changed or customized to specific situations - other than exposure and white balance settings.

I prefer to use the cameras raw data to work the image as I see fit, as opposed to taking the lazy way out and letting the camera do it all. And I get better results for my efforts. Besides I much prefer to edit raw files than to edit jpegs, though I am pretty comfortable doing the latter - it just requires more time and effort.

...made an earlier attempt today to point out there are, to my thinking, three different ways to capture and process images to consider. Since the words raw and jpg appeared in the post, the comments rapidly devolved into a SOOC, get it right in camera, editing raws makes it better, you're dumb, I'm smart, and so on.

None of that was the point I was trying to raise. Following is a more direct attempt and includes an illustrative cartoon.

Once again, this is NOT about composition or exposure which, I think, is what most people refer to when saying "get it right" in camera. Rather, this is about how images are processed and, importantly, what your options are when, in those obviously rare times, you "get it wrong" in camera and want to salvage the image.

These fundamental ways of processing relate to things like white balance, saturation, contrast, sharpness, for example, and NOT EXPOSURE - again - NOT ABOUT GETTING THE EXPOSURE CORRECT.

1. Adjust the settings of your camera using its internal menu to create a jpg in-camera.

Things like color space, white balance, contrast, sharpness, and similar. When you take the photo, the sensor creates an analog raw file of exactly what the camera "sees", converts it to digital, applies all of the image processing settings you have made and saves the image as a compressed jpg file. "Technically" the photo is done at that point since the raw data is gone, the output is a jpg, and you can no longer make changes like white balance, saturation, contrast, sharpness, for example, to "what the sensor saw" since that sort of information has been removed from the jpg file. Certainly, one can edit that jpg file but you are no longer editing the "controls" that can be applied to the raw "what the camera saw" image. Rather, you are editing a representation of what the camera actually saw after it has been altered by the image processing settings you chose when taking the photo. Applying those rules implies that no further editing is indicated.

2. Elect to capture images in raw and then use the software supplied by your camera's manufacturer.

When you do this, the camera creates an analog raw file of exactly what it "sees", converts it to digital, and saves it to your camera memory card as a raw image file - unchanged. You, then, copy that file of "exactly what the camera saw" to your computer as a raw file and, from there, (using the camera manufacturer processing software) you can apply any of the image processing options that were available in the camera. You set the white balance, saturation, contrast, sharpness, for example, AFTER the raw file was created. Importantly, when editing raw, those things can be changed at the "what the camera saw" level -- which you CANNOT do in a jpg. Using this technique, you are doing essentially the same processing as in SOOC - but in this flow, it's like going back to that exact moment in time when you pressed the shutter and choosing the camera settings. And, you can "change your changes" anytime you want in those clearly rare instances when you would have chosen the wrong settings for a SOOC capture.

I'm interested in learning what anyone thinks is a reasonable argument as to why you wouldn't want to do this. After all, it's the EXACT same thing, using the EXACT same processing rules and algorithms that are built into your camera - just doing it outside of the moment when you're capturing an image and with the ability to change them at any time and try different (correct?) settings without making any change to the raw file that represents exactly what the "camera saw".

3. Just like #2, above, but using Photoshop or whatever.

I have significant experience editing JPEG images and raw images. One can often get excellent results editing JPEGs, However you will almost always get even better results using raw files. And for a significant number of images there is simply no comparison. Editing raw will beat editing JPEG every time. It isn't magic. Raw files simply have a much greater latitude for editing. With a raw image you don't have to undo the in camera settings forced onto a JPEG when the camera processes it, and you have all the data from when the image was captured, not just the subset contained in a JPEG.

That is about the only thing I didn't do myself at least once just to know what and how the process worked.
Of course back then I couldn't afford a house big enough to even hold a Kodachrome Processing lab, let alone afford the lab, gear etc.

Not knowing any better the first roll of film I processed myself was Ektachrome. I got that roll done about as good as the local shop did. Then took a year to get to be able to do that well consistently.

About that same time I started taking Photo classes as electives while doing graduate work on my teaching credential.

You have no reason to say anything like that.

Or did I miss the memo that stated you are PERFECT! I am assuming your keeper rate is above 99.9%. Or am I wrong about that?

Perhaps in the days of film you only shot Polaroid and got it perfect the first time, every time. None of this shooting negatives and then manipulating in the darkroom the way all those losers did.

And yes I am in a bit of a mood today.

I get the impression that many here have very little to no experience editing JPEG files. Certainly there are situations when working with a RAW file can yield better results, but in most cases the exact same results can be achieved on JPEG's... if you know what you're doing. As not all of my cameras offer RAW output, I've learned to work with JPEG's over the years. It requires a slightly different approach than with RAW files. For example, one needs to put more thought into how to adjust the camera settings to generate a good starting point for later editing. To determine what adjustments to the settings need to made, one must first understand exactly what effect they all have on the image, and what can/will need to be accomplished afterwards during editing. The choice of camera settings needs be looked upon as an integral part of the editing process when shooting JPEG images - in essence, making RAW file adjustments in camera at time of shooting.