Interesting...
Do we need to turn it into another pointless RAW vs JPG discussion?
Why does a rhetorical allusion to a situation where a SOOC JPG photo might have more value than a perfectly-developed RAW photo - generates so much heat?
Hey, I'm all for RAW my-self, but having done weddings and using my dslr gear mostly for sports right now - I can see both sides of the fence. Sorting and editing 2-3k shots is not exactly fun. Even if you only keep every 10th file - it's still 200-300 shot to pump through a RAW converter at the end of the day. I may be happy with the results, but I'm still wishing I could get the same SOOC and use the time saved doing so on something else.
I also occasionally do portraiture where the time is taken to set up pretty much every single shot and I'm more than happy to fine-tune these shots in a RAW converter.
Some people here need to realize that there's a abyss between you taking pics of you kitty and flowers and people who actually do make money with their gear on a daily basis. Out there "good enough" is good enough and if a photographer is good enough to get sell-able JPGs SOOC - why not?
There's no really right or wrong away - it's what (and when) you're comfortable with that matters.
Originally posted by skyoftexas He's clearly better than 99% of posters around here, but "amazing"??? In what sense exactly?