You're entitled to that opinion even if I disagree.
Thanks so much for pointing that out!
How long you've been using Raw or your recommendations is immaterial to the points you still don't get.
No one said this was so, why do you feel you need to move away from the topic at hand and introduce such nonsensical statements.
This hasn't, nor shouldn't be a discussion about aesthetes. It's about a technical point you dismiss or fail to recognize.
Pointless to THIS discussion. If you had a Raw and a JPEG, we could discuss apples and apples.
Whatever blows your skirt up.
I am but once again, you've gone way OT not to express a point but to camouflages any desire to stay on track about a technical dissuasion here.
Again, a lot of writing that is totally immaterial to THIS post. As such, I suspect you either 'don't get it' or don't want to. Until you can stay on topic, I'm going to have to assume both.
I suggest you go back to school and redo English comprehension.
You simply dismiss anything counter to your viewpoint as irrelevent or off topic, usually as you never seem to read posts in context. You seem to be ignorant about the very varying abilities of working pros and God know why you think the photographer always knows best. Quite a few of the ones I know [experienced and doing quite very well for themselves] are pretty clueless about RAW and many other technical things, they are photographers and not software geeks/scientist types
like you are. I meet up regularly with other working pros in my city and half of them hate the techy/software crap. They pay someone to calibrate their monitors as they do not have the time or inclination to learn about such things as guess what, they are too busy taking photographs.
I tend to spend very little time on internet forums as I get really fed up with idiots not reading posts properly before responding. LL is useful for tecnical knowledge and is usually free of such types, but you seem to be the exception here. Plus you are so absolute about things, when quite frankly only a fool is absolute about humans and human behaviour. You should stick to pixel peeping, where being exact is a useful attribute.
The fact that you dismiss aethetics show how little you understand, as that is the absolute bottom line. Besides, getting the very best technical quality is not always the most important thing. As if it was, no-one would use anythng other than say a Hasselblad 39M camera or a 10x8 film camera. Any camera less perfect than the very best camera is a degradation in quality by comparison. Just like a JPEG is not as good qulity as a RAW file.
As an aside, even after calibrating the colours in ACR/LR, JPEGs out of the camera still have a slight edge in pleasing colour rendition on skin tones, in certain lighting conditions. And that is actually more important in many respects than being able to recover highlights or see into the shadows. Personally I quite like black shadows and will happily sacrifice the detail there if need be. A colour chart calibration is noticably better than no calibration, but still not always quite there with skin tones. And for some shots I may well use the JPEG if it looks nicer. And looking nicer is the
most important thing.
I think the problem with colour chart calibration is that you may need to do it with each lighting situation, which is not always practical and somewhat impossible to do with shoots already done.