Your point is well made. I believe photography, as a pastime/ hobby should really have no rules with respect to what the photographer thinks a final image should look like. If it’s well composed and pleases him/her then it’s a good photograph.
Having said that I’ve always had a problem with post processing as it relates to competitions. Don’t think a “Best in Show” should be awarded to someone who may not be a good photographer but has great computer skills. Think there should be two categories:
1. Open- which allows for unlimited manipulation.
2. What I’ll call “Natural “ - which limits PP to simple things like cropping.
I’m sure many on this forum will violently disagree with me.

ejones0310, this is not directed at you, but to everyone here who thinks the statement you made is gospel truth. It's often said here, rather innocently. But it is total BS!!! So here's my off topic RANT for the day, and probably the week:

Who says you have to record JPEGs in auto mode? The camera does not decide what menu choices you make. Nor does some engineer in Japan. The engineers DID select some default settings, but you do not have to accept the default menu choices!

Besides manual exposure and custom white balance, you have MANY controls over the JPEG processing done in your camera:

Picture Style
Dynamic Range Compensation
Color Tone
Hue
Contrast
Saturation
Sharpness
Scene Mode
... and the list goes on. Read the *Fine* Manual.

Some cameras even let you record in raw and post-process IN THE CAMERA. You can dial in the look you want before you save the JPEG.

Unfortunately, few photographers have the discipline to learn how to use these valuable, time-saving tools. They jump straight to raw, because some raw evangelist on the Internet (or a misguided community college instructor) said to. They record raw images in auto mode, then buy a software program to fix what they abdicated as their responsibility to get right at the camera. Yeah... raw IS for rookies! It is the most forgiving mode for the uninitiated.

Okay, so maybe that is a little extreme. But know this: There are plenty of pros who know the place for every tool on their cameras. They are comfortable using a JPEG workflow when that makes sense. They are equally comfortable recording in raw and post-processing. Here are some use cases:

JPEG makes sense when:

The lighting is controlled, consistent, and within about a five stop range.
You're photographing 500 of the same thing (school portraits, small parts under tent lighting...).
The job has a narrow profit margin.
You're doing forensic photography (post-processing is not allowed, for the sake of authenticity).
You're a photojournalist working for a news organization that does not accept post-processed images, again, for the sake of authenticity.
You're a photojournalist working on an incredibly tight deadline with zero time for post-processing. The deadline is most important.
You're an amateur photographer who knows exactly what to do to get great results straight out of the camera *for the current conditions.*
Getting an image for immediate transmission and use is more important than maximizing image quality.

Raw makes sense when:

The event is unique, and will never be repeated.
Light is changing rapidly, or the scene is lit unevenly, or is backlit, or has mixed color temperature lighting...
Dynamic range exceeds that of a JPEG processed in the camera, even with maximum compensation settings.
You plan to do significant manipulations and adjustments in post-processing.
There is sufficient time or budget for post-processing.
Technical image quality is of paramount importance.
You don't want to spend the time to learn what your camera can do.

The JPEG processing engine in your camera is actually quite powerful. But it does take some methodical learning and testing and observation and trial and error to get what you need from it.

Think of it this way: "Back in the day," many of us used color slide film. It was tricky stuff for professionals, let alone, amateurs!

You had to compose EXACTLY what you wanted to put on the screen, in your viewfinder.

You had an exposure latitude of +1/3, -1/2 to -2/3 of one f/stop. So you had to know how, and what, to meter for various types of scenes.

Slide film came in three color temperature ratings: Daylight (5600K), Type A (3400K), and Type B (3200K). So you had to match the film to the light source if you wanted accurate color rendition. If there was a mismatch, you had to use filters over the camera lens to compensate for it. I had a whole bag full of them, plus a color temperature meter and a chart that translated its readings to filter pack contents.

Every different brand and speed of chrome film had its own look. You had to pick a film that you liked, or that suited your subject.

If the brightness range of the scene exceeded about five stops, you had to decide whether to let the highlights burn out to clear film, or the shadows to merge into blackness. OR, you had to use supplementary lighting, reflectors, scrims, etc. to modify the light.

To make matters worse, it cost about $.42 a slide in 1984... equivalent to around $.98 a slide today.

The thing is, FUNCTIONALLY, slide photography was almost exactly the same thing that we have today, as JPEG photography! If you approach recording JPEGs the same way we did making slides, you'll get great results.

Compose in camera, because JPEG is not a file format meant for post-processing. It is a DISTRIBUTION format.

You have an exposure latitude of +1/3, -1/2 to -2/3 of one f/stop. So you must know how, and what, to meter for various types of scenes.

You have to balance the color of the light source to the sensitivity of the camera, if you want accurate color rendition. THE GOOD NEWS: It is FAR easier to do this with a digital camera than it is/was with any slide film! There is custom white balance, plus dial-a-Kelvin and dial-a-hue, plus pre-determined settings for incandescent, fluorescent, daylight, cloudy, shade, flash... So if you learn about white balance and how to get it right, and use an appropriate reference target or tool, you can NAIL the color and exposure, right at the camera!

Remember what I said about each film choice having a different look? The same is true for JPEGs! The Picture Style control on your camera gives you an overall character. There is Standard, Neutral or Natural, Portrait, Landscape or Nature, Monochrome, and other settings that vary with brand and model. Beyond that, you can adjust sub-parameters of sharpness, contrast, hue, saturation, dynamic range compensation...

With dynamic range compensation (branded with a different name by each manufacturer), you can compensate for some excessive scene conditions. However, you may still need supplementary fill lighting, or a reflector, gobo, scrim, or other light modifier.

All of this is merely to say, by recording JPEGs at the camera, you need only give up what you do not choose to control. The controls are there. But you must put in your time — Read the *Fine* Manual — and then do some careful testing to learn them.

Some folks pay thousands of dollars for a camera body, then throw the manual in a drawer and never open it. They're missing half of what they paid for! The same folks probably complain about subscription software costing ten bucks a month.

You want integrity in photography? Do your homework.