BigDaddy wrote:
If your jpg processing doesn't measure up, shoot RAW. JPG is not for everyone. When I say raw is not worth the effort, It should be understood I'm speaking for myself, not everyone. I've noted several times that for some, like billnikon, shooting RAW may be the only way to shoot. When I speak of raw zealots, I'm not necessarily talking about you just because you always shoot in raw. A raw zealot is one who constantly pontificates that RAW is for everyone, and exaggerates to the extreme the benefits of raw. There are a small handful of those, and when they show up, I enjoy the banter. BTW, I often shoot in RAW and never to my knowledge insinuated that no one should ever shoot in raw. It's benefits for most, imo, is the last thing most need.
If your jpg processing doesn't measure up, shoot R... (
show quote)
You are completely disingenuous and I suspect you know it. Every time someone refutes you with facts you try to spin your previous statements. You’ve proven you know as little about editors as you do raw files, (PS is NOT a “JPEG editor”. While you can use it to edit JPEG’s, which you can also do in Lightroom, I have never edited a JPEG in PS). Now you say that you’re only speaking for yourself when you say raw isn’t worth it after calling those that shoot raw “anal retentive”. I never said you or anybody else should shoot raw. I just say that because you lack the editing skills to make the most of shooting raw that you shouldn’t denigrate the benefits. Who are you to determine what other people “need”?