JPG editors are not destructive because the original photo is kept original by all but the most unskilled person, as in never edited a photo in their life. Additionally, layers are used in jpg editors so the original is not altered even in within the editor. Lastly, all major editors I know of have the capability to save the edited file lossless, preserving all the edits for future use as developer files, .PSD, .AFPHOTO, .ACDC and so on.

As far as using using "clone/heal" work, I've never seen it done in a RAW editor. Last I looked (quite a while ago), PS raw editor didn't have those tools.

I haven't used PS in years, but Affinity doesn't have those tools in their raw editor either. I've watched probably hundreds if not thousands of videos on editing this sort of thing, and virtually none of them used a raw editor to get it done.

I often wondered why raw editors didn't have the exact same tools available as jpg editors. I figured there must be a good reason but apparently jpg tools are now available to raw files. I assume layers are also fully available as well, as layers are a requirement for this sort of editing?

I would be interested in some links to people removing distractions like phone lines and what not with a raw editor?

No offense but 1.my editing skills may not be near professional levels but they far exceed the average photographer. My photography skills are on the low end of the average photographer, but on the high end of the average photographers editing skills.

2. Yes, I expose the raw and jpg the same. I fooled a bit with messing up the exposure (ETTR,ETTL) so exposure correction was required and I quickly found that was a waste of time. When I occasionally screw up exposure it's seldom off enough it can't be adjusted with a jpg editor.

I like my exposures to be as close to perfect as possible, then, I can easily make adjustment to the JPG. In 25 years of digital photography and editing, I never once said boy, wish I had taken that one in RAW. In fact in the last few years the majority of my photo's were taken by my son and daughter on cell phones and those are the pictures I edit. Never did I think wish they were taken in RAW. In fact, most of their pictures need almost no tweaking as far as Color, Exposure, WB, Sharpness and all that. Certainly never more than what a jpg editor provides.

In Fact, cell phones today are a perfect example of how modern technology has made taking pictures almost all composure and the "camera" gets rest of it right in all but extreme circumstances.

Here is a cell phone selfie photo taken 4 years ago by my daughter on a ski lift in Breckenridge, CO. The only processing done is when she texted the photo to me and her software re-sized the photo to just 307 bytes. What I didn't like about the photo, taken one handed by a non-photographer, with a non-camera 50 feet in the air on a chairlift with her 3 year old was there was no editing that I thought was needed. No raw editor, not even a jpg editor was needed.

This photo is an average example cell phones capability (4 years ago) as far as color depth, sharpness, exposure and so on. The majority of their pictures benefit from cropping, straightening, distraction removal and so on. NONE of which shooting in RAW would make an iota of difference. When the above issues are off, it's seldom past the ability of jpg editors to correct.

You would be a prime RAW candidate. Raw editors do their thing with exposure adjustments, color adjustments, sharpening and that sort of thing. Normally you can do that well enough with JPG editors but RAW can give more range.

More drastic edits, like removing poles sticking out of Aunt Bessie's head, or telephone lines, garbage cans, distracting lights and so on are all done in jpg editors. I generally don't need much in the way exposure, color and all that and JPG editors are pretty much capable of those to the degree I need.

If I'm off by more than the jpg editor can correct, there is a good chance the raw editor will challenge my artistic abilities more than I can handle anyway.

One of the more pleasant surprises was in how much correction could be done with a jpg when I had thought it could only be done in RAW. No doubt RAW gives more range, but for me, jpg generally suffices by a good bit. Normally, I'm pretty close, my camera's make it pretty easy.

My enlightenment came one day when I was trying to get a pic of a Swallow Tail butterfly and one landed right beside me. I quickly snapped his pic w/o adjusting for anything other than focus. The picture came out dark, too dark "I thought" for jpg. I was going to toss it when I decided to give it a shot in my editor, and it came out quite good.

I believe you are correct. I've read JPG released in 1994 is the standard that is still used today. JPG 2000 was released in 2000 that was supposedly much better at compression and also offered lossless compression. Almost no one was interested for I suspect two reasons. One, standard jpg was all anyone needed, and two, JPG 2000 was NOT backward compatible. Sooo, all the fuss about losing tons of data from jpg compression, raised not a feather when developers and users decided not to bother with the new and improved version.

All one needs do is look at the billions of spectacular jpgs displayed everywhere, and it's obvious why the new improved version was not needed, nor adopted after all. BTW, PNG files are also supposed to be improved (although larger) with lossless ability, transparency and so on, yet few use that either.

Based on my experience editing raw and jpgs. When I shot raw+jpg and edited the jpg first, then edited the raw, I found (like the OP) either I couldn't tell the difference or the jpg was actually better. The kicker came when I was taking a bunch of photo's in a low light situation where I thought RAW would make a big difference, and when it didn't make much or any difference, I simply stopped shooting raw for the most part.

My photography skills, equipment and editing skills are very average, nothing special, and shooting in RAW does not help in the least. Most of those inscribing to RAW here are in the same boat, and would be much better served learning to photograph and edit at a higher level than worry about shooting RAW.

You are what I consider in the top 3-5 photographers here. Your photo's are fantastic and you might squeeze out a wee bit shooting raw, but most here, particularly those routinely praising the seemingly unlimited benefits of raw, not so much. They need to focus on photography skills, editing skills far more than worrying about RAW vs JPG.

Yes, you're entitled to think RAW will improve your picture taking skills, but the truth is, that's the very last thing that will help.

True. Far more tools available with a jpg than a raw file. All the tools in a raw editor are available to a jpg photo, plus, all the jpg tools are available as well. If you don't know how to edit in both, you need to bone up on your skills.

In todays world editing skills seem more important than photo skills. Todays camera's make it fairly easy to get pictures well within the range needed for jpg editors.

One can practice his editing skills with a jpg, including loading his jpg into a raw editor. Once he perfects his picture taking skills and editing skills, he can proceed to shooting and editing raw photos if he sees a need.

Except you're NOT in the minority. The handful of RAW zealots here just make it seem that way.

Guys with the RAW T-shirts often compare edited Raw to unedited jpg. Fact is, most of the time, almost all the time, you and your camera take jpgs quite well, and you can 99% of the time edit the jpg to as good or superior to what you get with RAW.

Very little about RAW helps with the most common photography problems, which with todays camera's you have to try to screw up enough that raw is required. RAW is the LAST thing that makes for a good picture. A skilled editor can take a B&W jpg photo and colorize to very high standards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5Y8YcKnRm0

The most common problems with photography are in composition (pole sticking out of Aunt Janes head, crooked horizon, face shadows, ugly sky, etc. These are all easily fixed in a jpg editor. Even minor (actually pretty major) exposure and color issues can be fixed with a jpg editor.

If you are so anal retentive you need RAW to perfect your photo's then by all means, go for it. I have to laugh when old folks here thought their walls were yellow when in fact they were white. EVERYONES eyes are different, screens are different, printers different view points different and since the difference from edited RAW to edited JPG is close to imperceptible to most everyone, it is amusing that some insist RAW is the ONLY way to go and editing is only useful if done on a RAW image.

If you are a person who pays such attention to detail that it becomes an obsession then RAW would be a good choice. Good luck and occasionally you might end up with a better outcome than if you just shot JPG to begin with. And, unless you have superb artistic skills, you will more often end up with less than the edited jpg would have provided to you.

Yep. It's a common occurrence and the reason I shoot 95% jpg. Even in rare situation I think I might need the increased dynamic range, jpg can usually handle it just fine.

Well, why did you ignore the signs instructing to use BOTH LANES to the merge point? How could anyone race past anyone if both lanes were full of cars backed up from the merge point?

So the signs said use both lanes and to merge only at the merge point, and two 18 wheelers still blocked one lane so both lanes could not be used. Very strange, never happened in my experiences. You must have some very illiterate truck drivers in your area. I've seen exactly that happen many times where signs don't instruct both lanes be used. In fact, if that were to actually happen, I'd imagine drivers in front of the trucks blocking the lanes would simply move in front of the trucks to use both lanes as instructed, and the trucks would never get to the merge point. I'm guessing because I never witnessed that happening to begin with.

I agree it should be taught but it's not. Where there is no signage, the problems always exist, it's human nature. Many refuse to use the closing lane, and some insist on using it causing all the problems with "free for all" merging.

The solution might be teaching correct procedure, but absent that, proper signage makes it clear what should be done, and in my experience, it always works with few or no problems.

That's not possible when both lanes are used as the signs instruct.

Have you, or the Shadow ever been through a lane closure where this signage was present? It sure doesn't sound like you have?