You are partially correct. To quote Ansel Adams,

“You don't take a photograph, you make it.”


“You don't make a photograph just with a camera. You bring to the act of photography all the pictures you have seen, the books you have read, the music you have heard, the people you have loved.”

One can very easily compare a negative to a RAW file. One can print non-destructively from a negative. Each time one can manipulate the print exposure in various ways. This is much the same as a RAW file in which one can manipulate the final appearance through various adjustments in whatever processing software one uses.

Similarly, once the shutter is operated, the resulting exposure, whether film or digital, is made. Hopefully, all went according to plan when that initial capture was made. The captured image, film or digital, can't be easily corrected if a mistake is made.
--Bob

There is a lot more than getting it right in camera. You can get the focus, composition, light, etc all right in the camera (we all do, at least hope to). But............................

What if you want something brighter (burning) or darker (dodgeing). Suppose you only want the red rose to show in color (and you cannot select color in your camera).

The jpg comes from the raw data....Do you really want to let someone else develop your photo for you with their decisions, or would you like to do your own developing?

There are several reasons to shoot jpg and raw, or not to, but do not get on the high horse "I get it right in camera" because we all try to, but things happen, and we need a raw photo (ALL the data) to make better changes.

I only know one perfect Person that walked this earth, and I don't think you are HIM.

Thanks for that. All I meant was that the exposed sensor, or RAW file, is more like an undeveloped piece of film than a finished negative. Exposed film can be developed in a variety of ways (pushing, pulling, water bath, etc.), but developing is a one-shot destructive process. After it's done, intensifiers and reducers don't go very far. Developed film is more like a JPG where shadows and highlights are baked in compared to the latent image in the film. You can do a lot with a negative but not nearly as much as before it is subjected to the choice of developer, time, temperature, agitation, etc. Granted, it is easy and common to compare PP with enlarging or printing a negative because both involve a major break on the human part of the workflow, computer~=enlarger. Someone could offer a more technical explanation involving extracting both ends of the exposure spectrum pre vs post development, or even being able to apply filters for B&W photos after the fact taking the analogy of RAW back prior to exposing the film, quite tricky with a finished negative. Discussions aside, it's a great time to be a photo maker.

But you do understand I hope that if one does choose to shoot in RAW that image must be processed, just as a camera processes the JPEG image that is output. How one chooses to shoot and how and what they process is a personal decision and does not affect me so I really don't care about it. I shoot RAW because I like to be in charge of the changes made to the original RAW file, just like you appear to be someone who likes to shoot JPEG because you don't have the desire to be in charge of the changes made to the original RAW file. It all works as long as the photographer is happy with the outcome. Getting it "right" can actually have various meanings in the world of photography, your "right" and my "right" could be somewhat different. Obtaing a well-exposed image is a good goal to have but even what that might mean, based on what the intent is, can differ. I haven't looked at your work and I assume you are happy with it but just because you do something does not mean that everyone else should do what you do. I can do a lot more creative processing with a RAW file than my camera can do with a RAW file as the camera does not have my vision. It's about more than the basics.

If you were to hit the "quote reply" button then we would know to whom you were referring without having to search back through the comments. The photographers of the past are gone (yes, we know that), that's why we refer to them that way, of the past, but that does not diminish their impact on photography today. Adams had a tremendous impact on photography and is one of the reasons that photography became known as an art and not just as a science. There are many other things that he also did for photography and it's probably good to remember him and others who came and left before us as they paved the way.