Doesn't sound quite as extreme as you have portrayed it.
I'm not trying to portray anything, I'm providing quotes from the guru. A few more (this isn't a paraphrase, its exact word by word quotes):
Master-type corrections are undesirable because they increase and/or decrease saturation in ways that the user can't control. [AR despite this is how the tool was designed and most people prefer to see the results]
When a picture is being lightened by a master correction, saturation has to increase because the lightest channels are being hurt proportionally more than the dominating darker ones. Often that makes the image look better, but it's clearly the wrong policy to implement as a general rule--a serious user needs to make the decision of whether to saturate or not on a case-by-case basis.
Yes it makes it look better because that's how it was designed AND what nearly all users want. And its wrong because guru says its wrong? And this can be controlled if so desired, the saturation can be lowered to produce roughly the results of the individual curve method using a luminosity blend adjustment in PS or using additional tools in CR.
2) Those people who still use master RGB curves or, worse, levels, might take this occasion to discard these primitive tools (or limit them to very small moves, where the harm they do is unlikely to be noticeable). This image is a spectacular example of why channel-by-channel is better, but even images that superficially look good can benefit from proper color handling, which master adjustments don't offer.
Primitive? One guru's opinion but just that, an opinion without backing.
Better? Why, if it doesn't look better?
I studied whether there were any circumstances under which image-by-image manipulations in Camera Raw followed (if necessary) by manipulations in Photoshop would ever yield superior quality to a conservative, damage-free Camera Raw acquisition followed by Photoshop manipulation. After testing around 100 images, I concluded that in some cases opening the range in Camera Raw actually damaged the image to the point that it was no longer possible to get a good result without excessive effort, if it was possible at all. In most cases the impact was small. There were no cases I could identify where one could get better image-by-image results by using any of Camera Raw's functionality.
Damaged how? Never explained. Was the damage the "if necessary" manipulation in Photoshop after (on an 8-bit file)? Don't know.
My favorite quote:
It does, however, beg the question: if saving time is so important that quality compromises need to be made, why is the raw format being used at all? With rare image-specific exceptions, essentially anybody who is not a beginner will get better final results by shooting JPEG and correcting in Photoshop than an expert can who shoots raw but is not allowed to do any manipulation outside of the acquisition module. And in less time, too. The idea of a raw module is to *empower* the image-manipulation program, not replace it.
We are interested in good but not great quality. We will correct images individually in the raw module to make them look as best we can, but that's going to be it. It doesn't matter if we could do more in Photoshop
afterwards--we're just not going to do it, because the extra quality isn't worth the time.
Every other professional-level program gives us several options of how to establish range. But with ACR, you are getting more saturated colors, whether you like it or not--no way to bypass it. That's not acceptable for a professional user, and that's why the routine is inferior.
Not true as will soon be demonstrated. Of you can try on your own in CR or LR, the tools are there.
So working on an 8-bit JPEG is the way to go, not using CR? Must be due to the math of which we have yet to see proof (or for that matter, images). Anyone here who's worked on edited JPEGs and a good Raw converter buy this?
OK, my portrayal is we have a guru that seriously doesn't understand how Raw modules work or why, sees Photoshop as the only hammer in his tool chest and when asked to prove the short comings of a initial Raw converter rendering workflow (its not correction, its rendering, something else he fails to recognize), guru ignores requests for proof.
He's used similar tactics to dismiss high bit workflows or wide gamut working spaces. Since most users, other than those who believe everything he says, has moved past those two points, and adopted these techniques the next whipping boy is CR and LR specifically (Adobe products, which he loves to whale on).
The tactics he uses, are clearly demonstrated and have been for years with respect to his High Bit challenge:http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?DanMargulis.html
Its interesting to see how a true scientist views these tactics. Again, he says the moon is made of cheese, and we are not the ones that should disprove the notion, he has to prove the point. He didn't do it here with respect to high bit capture and editing, he didn't do it with Raw processing. My portrayal is he doesn't use good science, he uses religion. Some of us don't care to drink that koolaid.
On the other hand, IF he really did have math to prove his point, he could provide this as a benefit to the imaging industry for people like Thomas Knoll. I suggested his role here could be useful to the industry but that's not on his radar. Or maybe the so called math is a figment of his imagination?