>>3073724Doesn't jpeg basically compress files by binning pixels that are "similar" together and calling it one color?
Before you go pandering off with statements of egotism, please re-read to see "personal preference", which means I'm saying this is my opinion, not "law".
From my experience handling JPEG's, anything within the highlight/shadow regions that could be recovered would normally be clipped for file compression.
While I understand your methodology to comparing the constraints of JPEG to RAW in terms of the constraints that breed creativity, you obviously ignore the bulk of us who are photographers by trade, who will not risk losing that perfect moment that could have another photographer's flash firing right on yours, or sudden changes in your environment (since I make my bread and butter on nightclubs) means that I need to ensure I have editing latitude.
Besides, this is all art, and who are you to criticize the chef wanting the widest, finest ingredients because the Chinese chef down the block can make tasty food with just a few refrigerated ingredients?
You show your lack of age or maturity by basically taking an opinionated post despite all my defense of said photographer's work as a half assed attempt at an educated response to a zen master.
Please, try again, since JPEG or RAW, we will all be constrained by our lenses, sensors, and basic eyes for creativity, thus negating your argument that one more limiting factor somehow implies being better or worse.
Get rekt newb.
You were the one who implied JPEG's are for amateurs, which shows you ignored my mention of photojournalists, or anywhere where I actually said that.
JPEG shooters often also avoid rookie mistakes by not editing their photos and leaving artifacting from automatic brushes in LR :>)
