Gramps wrote:
Which requires Post Processing that JPEG doesn't. I have never shot raw except when I decided I must be behind the curve from so many "Pros" discussing it's use. So far, I have never had to wish I could do more than I get from simple , emaginitive, non contrived non raw. Perhaps that's where different strokes for different folks came from?
If I understand you correctly you're implying that JPEGs never need post processing to look their best and RAW files always need post processing. If that's what your saying its inaccurate. If post processing is required for a RAW file chances are the JPEG could use it as well. Adjustments to RAW give significantly better results than adjustments to JPEG. As an example, its amazing how much detail lost in shadow areas can be recovered from RAW files in post processing. You may not miss the extra detail in you jpegs simply because you don't know its there. Just about the only thing you can't adjust is focus.