These references are not relevant to the question being discussed here. Calibrating ACR to suit the specifics of your camera's sensor is a different matter from whether Camera Raw, in competent hands, has the capability of rendering colours *properly*, or as you want them to be rendered.
But if you have to calibrate ACR before you can get ACR to work, it's not that perfect a tool is it? And the difficulties some people have had with ACR and Oranges/Reds would not have been mentioned if it was not a problem for some. Also if you use Nikon/Canon/Olympus/Leaf..etc, you may have greater or lesser issues with ACR.
BTW I really like ACR and find it faster/better to use than LR when doing batches of images. And even though I regard myself as being fast/competent with ACR, it still takes more a little more time than a nicely exposed JPEG, so if I need an image quickly....and generally if one needs an image quickly, the last few drops one can get from RAW won't be missed.
The first time I ever used digital professionally was for a CD ROM and rather than shoot on film [this was a few years back], scan in and process and downsize, I used a Camcorder with a stills facility. The pitures weren't exactly ideal for A3 mag spreads but absolutely perfect for the job in hand, that allied to being able to use a LCD screen I could use for framing when shooting in awkward spots and auto white balancing, made a less than exciting job a whole lot easier.
I simply use the best tool for the job. Sometimes ACR is a great power tool and sometimes a JPEG is the perfect hammer, when you want to err, nail something quickly.
.....[JPEGs] can produce very useable images in a jiffy, which is a godsend to certain classes of photography where very great speed in the obtaining and delivery of results is absolutely essential - for example some news photography, sports photography, etc. This is not a format for fine art photography period. The fact that it can under certain conditions produce acceptable results for this purpose too does not establish a general case for its comparability with raw processing - in competent hands.
And a competent reader would have noticed I shoot RAW + JPEG and I don't advocate the use of JPEGs for ultimate quality. To repeat myself, I use RAW when time permits and I may on occasion use JPEG when time doesn't or if the JPEG is more than good enough.
As for the 'not suitable for fine art period.' What snobbish + ignorant nonsense. Shows how little you know about art. Art photography can very often be very poor when it comes to technical quality.
Fine art is not exclusively high quality, maximum dynamic range, no grain..etc. It can often be snapshot camera in quality. http://www.thedailynice.com/site.html
is the site of a photographer who has been exhibited [ever heard of the Tate?] and lectures in photography. Personally I'm not a fan of his work and he eschews technical matters as he doesn't think they are that important. And still he is seen as a fine art photographer.
Plenty of images/exhibitions at the Photographer's gallery in London are of the quality that would be sneered at here by the pixel peepers. I'm pretty sure a Jurgen Teller exhibition I saw a while back was snapshot quality images.http://www.designboom.com/portrait/teller.html
Some of the most popular images in my A3 print portfolio were taken on an ancient Ixus II a 2.1MP compact with no RAW option. And I once used a really rubbish watch camera to document a dance night. I also seem to recall a Paul MacCartney album used the same watch for the album cover and artwork a short while later. If you are creative, you can exploit the 'flaws' to make something interesting/appealing. I used my S60 to do film stills for a shoot once instead of my DSLR, I could shoot during takes [near silent in action] and the poorer quality, which I exaggerated was perfect for the subsequent artwork/stills.
To quote Anton Corbijn " The idea of perfection is a bit boring and I like the idea of imperfection in a way. And the way I work imperfection is built in" He certainly never worries about getting the maximum shadow detail. Still uses film too I think.http://www.corbijn.co.uk/frameset_works.htm
As for this sad comment from mistybreeze "When it comes to quality, I'm a total snob, which is why I chuckle when I meet a photographer who shoots JPEG. I can't help my reaction and nor can I ever settle for less than RAW. "
Do you also think wearing certain labels make you a better person too? You sound just like the talentless muppets I've come across who wouldn't use anything less than a Leica, as "nothing else was good enough". Didn't make their pictures any less boring.