Brilliant -- raw won't fix dead batteries, lost cameras, dirty sensors, or someone's lack of logic and reason, either. Guess it's useless...

Regarding photographing family and our lives, there are no more important photographs, to me. If fact, I apply MORE energy and effort into capturing and processing those *snap* images than anything else I photograph. Those fleeting moments of life are the most important to preserve and that is why I try the hardest to get the images as good as my skills will allow - and I capture them in raw so that I have the best chance of "getting them right".

Wow...just wow. It almost seems that language has no meaning.

Did you miss the point that shooting in raw (fyi: raw is a noun and not an acronym so it is written lowercase) let's you do everything you do when capturing jpgs in exactly the same way - just outside of the camera. It gives you the amazing added bonus of letting you change the camera jpg settings *after the fact* in case you did not get your *snap* "right in camera" the first time. Using your camera manufacturer's free raw processing application, you can apply exactly the same jpg processing choices that you could have configured in your camera -- using their software the camera manufacturer applies the exact same formulas and algorithms to the native raw image whether you do it inside the camera or out. Most significantly, if you later decide you don't like those choices, you can change your mind and select other in-camera equivalent jpg processing options with no degradation of the original image.

What in the world does any of that have to do with unseen colors and "My 'snaps' are more important to me than my 'photographs'. They represent my life rather than my hobby." ? Was that meant to be obtuse or condescending?

Sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying. Whether shooting jpg or raw one must get the exposure correct, i.e., "set the camera according to the actual light experienced on the day." That's principle #1 for all photography. In other words, setting a proper exposure is a universal requirement and irrelevant to a conversation about raw and jpg. (With the exception that raw post-processing is much more forgiving than for jpgs and makes some reasonable exposure error correction possible)

What, I think, you are overlooking is that your camera allows for hundreds (thousands?) of combinations and permutations of picture mode, white balance, d-range, sharpening, saturation, and on and on when capturing jpgs. When you shoot jpg whatever combination of those you have chosen in the camera's menu are baked into the jpg image and all other possible combinations are eliminated forever.

Every dslr captures ONLY raw images. The choice is whether to apply all of the settings you have selected in the camera's menu to that image (post-process it in the camera) and then save it to jpg format on your sd card - or keep the unprocessed raw images and process them yourself until you "get it right". Post-processing raw images lets you make all of the same adjustments (camera settings) you did in-camera but also lets you change your mind and use different adjustments (camera settings) along with modifying about a zillion other things you can't adjust/correct in camera.

You ARE shooting raw but choosing to do the post-processing in the camera and save only the processed jpg. The fly in the ointment is that the camera has no idea of what you are trying to capture and creates an image based upon a mathematical formula - a statistical average - not what you think the image should be. Think that's not true? Get two pieces of paper - one black and one white. Separately make a single picture of each piece (one for the black and one for the white), fill the frame with the paper and, using the camera's metering system, take a photo of each according to what the camera tells you is a proper exposure (manual mode/exposure or any auto-exposure mode - it doesn't matter). Voila' -- both images are grey. The camera's metering is trying to average out the exposure of the entire frame to 18% grey overall -- the white gets under-exposed and the black gets over-exposed. If you put the two pieces of paper side-by-side and repeat the test, it'll come out with a more proper exposure - half-black and half-white equals, you guessed it - 18% grey. That's the whole issue with taking photos of dark subjects in snow, on bright sandy beaches, against bright skies, and so on. Again, the camera has absolutely no awareness of what you are photographing.

When shooting jpg do you routinely change those internal settings (not just the exposure) to fit every shooting situation in order to "get it right"? If you get all of these things set to, say, capture the sunset at the beach (all of those internal camera settings/options) and then turn to take a picture in the opposite direction don't you have to change all of them again? Then the sun sets a little more and you change them again? Once again, I'm not talking about the exposure triangle but about ALL of the internal jpg modification controls inside the camera.

My suspicion is that a great number of "get it right in the camera" folks are thinking only of getting the basic exposure correct and not about the myriad of other camera settings that affect the image and, thus, decisions the camera is making for them. That's why they all keep the green Auto mode available. Another suspicion is that many of these folks, while they have a speedlight, do not own any sort of flash or light modifiers, e.g., umbrellas, softboxes, diffusers, reflectors, and so on. That said, if you're shooting snapshots then raw probably can't help you. But, if you're MAKING photographs then you're probably shooting raw.

Here's my final thought... Do you know that camera manufactures provide software applications for processing raw images created by their cameras? Nikon, for example, provides Capture NX-D. Remember, the raw files are essentially digital negatives that simply contain the exact information collected by the sensor with no processing applied -- except for the exposure and composition you choose you have no "in camera" control over the contents of the raw file.

With Capture NX-D you can capture then process the raw .nef file and choose to apply the exact same changes (post-processes) to the raw file that you could have applied in camera when "getting it right." Things like white balance, exposure compensation, picture control, active D-lighting, camera & lens correction, noise reduction, sharpness, saturation, etc., etc. The controls in Capture NX-D are named the same as those in the camera.

Let me say that again: with Nikon Capture NX-D software you can take a raw file and apply exactly the same menu settings you would have used when "getting it right" in the camera. Capture NX-D processes the raw image using the exact same controls and algorithms that could have been applied in camera when shooting jpg. You can then save the image as jpg, tiff, etc - whatever works for you.

Plus, you can choose to make corrections for poor exposure choices you might have made.

The difference is that the changes made by Capture NX-D are non-destructive: you always have the original, unmodified raw file. So you can experiment with different "in camera" settings. That means you can effectively reshoot the image over and over again with different "in camera" settings until you "get it right".

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/microsite/capturenxd/

And, if you're up to using advanced photo editing software, you can make your raw files look more like Joe McNally's work

Here's an anecdote for you...

I attended a Joe McNally portrait lighting seminar recently. Throughout the training event Joe shot tethered so that the staff could receive the images on computer and project them for the attendees to view in real-time.

In the seminar, Joe shot exclusively in jpg so the real-time projection was possible -- well, that is until he commented that one of his student volunteer portrait models had an interesting face. At that point, Joe advised the staff he was switching to raw for that subject, so they would be alerted that the different format was coming. I later asked him why and he said, "those shots were for me and I always want the best possible image file I can create."

So, he was shooting jpg - never changing picture mode, white balance, using auto-iso, etc, for the seminar pictures. The images looked pretty good - after all, he is Joe McNally. But, when he wanted an image to keep for himself, he shot in raw.

Now, go ask yourself why Joe McNally feels that he is unable to to "get it right in camera" in a jpg.

Oh, and if you don't already know who Joe McNally is, well, never mind...

http://portfolio.joemcnally.com/index

So, comparing one thing done well to another thing done poorly is supposed to be a meaningful/useful comparison? Does that mean a well-cooked hamburger is better than a badly cooked prime steak? And, therefore, hamburger is always the superior food choice.

So, how about this assertion: a properly-exposed raw image with competent post-processing is ALWAYS going to be as good as and, most often, better than a JPEG, irrespective of the quality of the JPEG's exposure.

Reminds me of a short movie made by Derek Lamb in the late 1970s and shown on PBS. The movie was 'The Psychic Parrot'.

The story goes like this...

An ordinary middle class suburban couple sees a celebrity parrot on TV who foretells the future with absolute accuracy. They are shocked when the parrot predicts the exact time and date the world is coming to an end.

After that initial shock, the couple then realize there's nothing to worry about -- the "government" will protect them. They decide to celebrate the final event as if it was New Year's Eve, since the time of predicted destruction was midnight. Again, no worries -- the "government" will protect us.

Unknown to the public, government officials, the wealthy, and entertainment celebrities use tax dollars to build a fleet of space ships that secretly flies them to a hastily constructed colony on the moon. The "privileged" will escape the earth's destruction.

But midnight on the specified dates comes and the world doesn't end. A special alert program comes on worldwide TV and the parrot declares that he made a mistake. As the parrot begins to explain himself, the moon blows up.

And everyone on earth lived happily ever after.

Maybe this will help... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AynXoLjYrKc

Here's an app for you - create a bootable USB stick and reset the passwords on any Windows computer...

http://www.resetwindowspassword.com/

No, I'm being reasonable and sensible...give it a try.

Ditto on publishing photographs that have a painting, sculpture, or other artwork in the background. You must obtain releases from the copyright / intellectual property owner. This occurs sometimes in, for example, real estate and editorial photo work.

Sometimes media photojournalists cover the logo so, if they appear in a photo taken by someone else, they and their employer don't appear to be promoting a particular brand. In other work areas, weddings, for example, covering the logo sometimes may help reduce the chit-chat with folks wanting to talk about the equipment.

In the spirit of accuracy and proper identification... It's an Airbus A340 which means it is absolutely not Southwest Airlines. The tail is painted with the A340 designation that suggests this specific aircraft was not part of any airlines fleet and was being displayed/operated by Airbus, itself, as part of the A340's release/introduction. The Airbus motto "Longer - Larger - Farther" doesn't work well with that one door open, though.

FYI... here's the original from the 1970s. The comments below the video (click on 'Show More') have some background around making the video and about the guy who wrote the original script. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac7G7xOG2Ag