Kind of yeah. And yet Polaroids are professional too.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/seven-famous-photographers-who-used-polaroids-97986365/

You actually agreed with the OP (sort of). Your examples aren't describing overriding what the camera's meter says is correct exposure, they are examples of the aperture and shutter speed combo you select to create the depth of field or blur you want which is exactly what you would get if you used aperture or shutter priority, like the OP said.

Chimping isn't an acronym it was coined as a term because of how foolish and monkeylike people who were doing it looked to other photographers. It often is used in a derogatory manner and I find it to be a terrible habit that causes you to miss the action going on around you. If you really want to do it though it's your camera; go ahead and chimp all you want. To be clear, the term is most often applied to photographers who check every (or nearly every) image they take immediately after every single shot, it isn't the act of occasionally checking your images to verify everything is going well.

I think you made yourself pretty clear and I agree. For exposure there is no functional difference between setting aperture and shutter speed in manual mode versus using a semi auto mode if you are exposing based on the meter's recommended exposure. Beyond that some people prefer exposing over or under the recommended exposure manually and some prefer doing it using exposure compensation. Same result occurs. The big difference happens when in rapidly changing conditions where it can save you a lot of time and missed shots by using a semi auto mode compared to full manual.

Agreed, also I had quite a laugh when I read the list of equipment it said you must own to be a professional.

I think that was the OP's point. That a lot of people who shoot in manual are exposing based on what their meter says anyway so it isn't really any different than just shooting in auto (assuming similar aperture/ shutter speed/ ISO settings are being selected)

Beyond the technical aspects it also has a lot with how you view photography, yourself as a photographer, and your tools. If you just want to get nice looking image from a camera without a lot of hassle shooting jpg is fine. Or if you want to just concentrate on composition and the moment in front of you then jpg may be best. If you think of capturing the image as just one part of the art of photography you might see that by shooting jpg you are turning over a lot of the creative decision making process from yourself to the camera.

There is nothing wrong with either method. Even famous photographers of the past had different approaches to it. Someone like Ansel Adams would not likely be a jpg shooter for example as to him controlling processing and printing was just as important as the image taking process. On the other hand you have photographers like Henri Cartier-Bresson who would probably be using a camera in a semi-automatic or even fully automatic mode and shooting in jpg. He might just use a smartphone. He only really cared about capturing the right composition and moment in camera and not in the darkroom. If it works for you its not wrong.

My own preference is shooting in RAW because I want to be the one to decide the level of saturation different colors or areas of the image will have, I want to decide the contrast, sharpness, nose levels, etc. If I'm going to do all that anyway I may as well do it with the RAW file where I have more image data to work with. Also I hate worrying about white balance in camera.

Hi Gene, yes I was referring to compression not pixel dimensions.

Also, using a site like Flickr or other site dedicated to photography would allow for people to download the full resolution of the images and an easy way to order prints if that is what the photographer wants.

Lovely waterfall images by the way.

Not to forget also that using a handheld meter can also just be plain fun.

I'd say it was the light meter that was invented for those who don't want to figure out or are too lazy to understand the processes. With a few exceptions I'd venture a guess to say there aren't many photographers shooting in manual who don't rely on their meter to at least get a starting or base exposure and then alter their exposure from that. That or do the same using their playback screen.

I don't know if I'd call it easy but some sites have Lightroom export plugins. I don't really care for how Lightroom handles them. I don't think MPIX has one but Shootproof and Pixieset have them, Flickr does too. I prefer just exporting from Lightroom and uploading the images myself though.

There are several reasons to shoot both depending on your camera and need. Many cameras that have dual storage card slots allow you to send the RAW files to one card and the jpeg to the other which makes for a nice backup if your card with RAW files fails. Another reason is that some shooters need to transmit or share images right away after the shoot. This might be for review by a client, photojournalism situations, etc. This is much easier and faster with jpg files but you might then want the RAW files for editingredients the client picks.

I agree completely as regards exposure but the image would likely still look different from the manual shot than the auto shot unless you just happen to pick the exact same aperture and shutter speed settings.

Your post seems to have been hijacked by the which one is better debate though and for that I'll say neither manual nor auto settings are better as long as you are getting the results you want. For me I'll use manual, aperture priority, shutter priority, or program depending on the situation, subject, and camera. One big advantage to using auto exposure modes is knowing you'll end up with decent exposures when shooting with ambient light in a situation where you don't have time to keep checking your exposure and have to concentrate on the action. In those situations I'll usually use exposure compensation when I think my meter will be thrown off by the scene. If I'm shooting in a controlled environment like a studio or a slower paced environment like landscape, still life, or nature photography I'll more often shoot in manual.