But as Michael's own tests show, if seasoned pros can't tell a difference between a P&S and top-end MFDB in prints, I'd imagine it's the same story with RAW vs JPEG. Yet I still shoot RAW and am moving to a bigger camera...
First off, I have nothing against JPEGs. I just don't shoot that format. I see no need in Raw+JPEG in my workflow. In fact, when I got the first camera that did this, I learned early on that those JPEGs were a waste of space on my card and drive. Why? Not because they suck. No one in their right mind would say that when an image is properly captured for JPEG. The camera manufacturers spend huge amounts of R&D, like the film cameras, trying to produce a rendering in camera most people will like. The reason the JPEGs didn't cut for me is, trying to get the Raws to match was just too much work. Show a client a JPEG, they expect that exactly from the Raw. Now the new camera profiles from Adobe are a step in the right direction. They attempt to mimic the "look" of the JPEGs.
So JPEGs are fine. Unless of course you don't like the canned rendering after which you're kind of screwed. There's only so much turd polishing one can conduct on an 8-bit JPEG (plus its slow and very damaging). The reason many of use shoot Raw is obvious. Its about control.
Its not because the JPEGs would suck. Again, IF you shoot JPEG, looking at the rendering quality of differing cameras is important. One has to question all the data, gamut, potential loss of DR from doing this, assuming you don't also shoot Raw.
Yes I agree, on the print, one would be hard pressed to tell the difference. The question has to be directed
not at the viewer but at the image creator. 99 times out of 100, they prefer the JPEG to what they could accomplish from Raw? I really doubt the figures are anywhere near that level.
This is a bit like the old days when you had photographers that shoot film and also did their own printing. Many were too well paid to spend anytime doing anything but shooting. Can't argue with that. Not every photographer HAS to process their own Raws. Plenty have digital assistance to do most of the heavy lifting. Jay Maisel wouldn't know a Raw converter if it hit him on the head. He's not the least bit interested in processing images. He shoots RAW+JPEG and (I think to some degree, unfortunately) dismisses any JPEG he doesn't like and has his assistants process the Raws to match. He's not having to process hundreds let alone dozens of images at a time anyway. His staff can spend as much time as necessary messing with the Raws. He can go out and shoot. Others find rendering their Raws as important as shooting. There's no right or wrong answers here.
The idea however that Adobe, or anyone is brainwashing users into Raw is silly. It doesn't take very long to show most users the upside of Raw.