You said you aren't saying it's better but you sure say that it's like the best way to get the best results or something, and surely you can't comprehend why (apparently) anyone would chose JPEG.
Sorry but that sure reeks of "Raw is the best." It sure took several replies to acknowledge that this is after all best for you and your workflow.
Also the reason you still give for computer performance still completely ignores the difference in custom hardware acceleration or hardware made for a specific domain.
Maybe for example, if I said that focusing on getting it right instead of having to post process, is what develops the photographic eye, the photographic skills because after all, someone who is horrible with a camera in seeing light and composition can be a great retoucher and can't be called a great photographer. Now, if I said this, doesn't that comes across as perhaps suggesting that "JPEG is best?" (note, I am not saying I stand on this end per se, but I want to make a point here of what you are saying).
I mean for example I could also say "shooting in JPEG and getting it right on the camera provides a medium of compelling photography that, doing post processing other than creating digital art, makes post for a lot of situations a waste of time *-
*- assumes you have a decent jpeg engine and the skills as a photographer to pull this off"
That doesn't sound a bit weird to you if I said that?
Sorry but that sure reeks of "Raw is the best." It sure took several replies to acknowledge that this is after all best for you and your workflow.
Also the reason you still give for computer performance still completely ignores the difference in custom hardware acceleration or hardware made for a specific domain.
Maybe for example, if I said that focusing on getting it right instead of having to post process, is what develops the photographic eye, the photographic skills because after all, someone who is horrible with a camera in seeing light and composition can be a great retoucher and can't be called a great photographer. Now, if I said this, doesn't that comes across as perhaps suggesting that "JPEG is best?" (note, I am not saying I stand on this end per se, but I want to make a point here of what you are saying).
I mean for example I could also say "shooting in JPEG and getting it right on the camera provides a medium of compelling photography that, doing post processing other than creating digital art, makes post for a lot of situations a waste of time *-
*- assumes you have a decent jpeg engine and the skills as a photographer to pull this off"
That doesn't sound a bit weird to you if I said that?
I didn't. I have said, in this thread and elsewhere:
- that a raw workflow has a finer degree of adjustability and more editabilty than in-camera image processing,
- that there is no substantive advantage in image quality to in-camera processing compared to the fine control possible in a more powerful computer *,
- that the advantages of in-camera processing with respect to tailoring to the sensor and hardware of the camera lie in optimizing for performance given the limited processing capabilities of camera hardware,
- that a raw workflow suits my photography best **,
- that others might consider the in-camera JPEG engine best for their particular needs/desires, for whatever reason.
* ...which presumes an image processing application of appropriate quality and adequate skill by the user to take advantage of it.
** I didn't go into details as to why I consider that to be the case in this thread.