LoL, in the last two days I got beat up by two jokers that have NEVER(not here anyway) posted an image.
Usually, the older they get, the better they are/were, or at least until they actually post something, after which it's pretty obvious they aren't as good as they want to be or make themselves out to be!
If they want people's respect, they can't just struct around and talk the talk. All of us are capable of reading a post, then using Google to find some answers and coming back and sounding like we might have actually known something.
BUT, where the rubber really meets the road is where we can actually connect the dots and put that knowledge into practice. The ONLY way to demonstrate that we can do that is to post that we have actually done that.
You don't have to be a Pro shooting for NatGeo, you just have to demonstrate that you understand what you're preaching so it can be believable and useful to someone else!!
It's how you gain respect and confidence from others!!!
SS

Maybe someone else can come up with an approach. I can't think of a fair and workable way to implement a rating system. Meantime we are probably stuck with doing our own research.

The criteria I consider are whether they:
- post examples appropriate to the topic
- post images here or elsewhere
- initiate threads or just troll other threads
- post a large percentage of negative feedback
- are courteous
- admit they don't know all the answers and are willing to accept ideas from others and learn

There are probably other you or I could suggest.

Seriously? All of you naysayers are trying to convince me that RAW/PP of a "less-than-perfect" image will produce a better final result than SOOC JPEG/PP, but you can't demonstrate that with examples?


As I pointed out in a recent post, a True Colour 24-bit colour depth monitor like my Mac can show more colours than the human eye can detect, so if I can't see the difference then what are the benefits of RAW (putting aside the concept of archiving a "digital negative" that can be reprocessed differently at some future time)?

I really thought my original request was quite simple:
- show me SOOC JPEG image that needs some improvement (I was thinking quite specifically of overly dark shadows in some regions, but did not want to restrict contributions)
- show me what you get by doing manipulation of the SOOC JPEG in an attempt to improve the image (I fully expect to see some improvement, but perhaps some artifacts as well)
- show me that by starting with the RAW file and doing similar manipulations the final result is superior.

Note that I was NOT asking for a simple comparison of two images, one being the SOOC JPEG and the other a RAW/developed image; the request was ALWAYS aimed at fixing up an image that had some serious shortcomings or challenges. The original request was never a contest to see who could come up with a better photo; I fully expected to see some really amazing rescues of photos and some mediocre ones. The thread was also not a "do my work for me" in that I did not post a photo and ask for help fixing it; I specifically wanted to see a broad range of photographic situations in which the merits of RAW would really standout.

I am surprised that folks in the RAW camp have not seen the benefits of RAW in a situation such as what I was proposing. With the broad range of members out there I thought that maybe someone could go back into their files and pull out an example or two with very little effort. Again, thanks to those who did contribute with images, and thanks to those who politely declined.

As for me being a troll who does not believe in RAW, the ENTIRE PURPOSE of this thread was to demonstrate the superiority of RAW, which I never doubted for a minute!!! To those who called me a troll, you missed the point of the thread entirely because you are... never mind, I will take the high road.