No, what you are pointing out is that it's important to learn how to use their raw tools...it's not the fault of the raw files that the guy screwed them up.
Exactly! The fault is with the user of the tool, not the RAW format.
Actually, I like processing my images in Lightroom and Camera Raw. Last year, I got a copy of your Digital Negative book which I enjoyed a lot and learned a few tricks from reading it. It sits on my reference shelf right beside the Martin Evening's books.
That doesn't make sense. Are you saying he's run JPGs through a RAW workflow ? <understatement>That's not a great way to work.</understatement>
The point about RAW workflow is you always have the original file to go back to. Anyone competent should then be capable of delivering a better file than an OOC JPG.
The smart advice for anyone unsure about using RAW is to shoot with RAW+JPG, then you can retain your future options for increasing quality.
I apologize for not being clear. He actually shoots RAW+JPG, and all the processing is applied to the RAW file, then exported as JPG. He has great looking histograms, but cranks up the clarity, saturation, and sharpening to the tilt. Some people think that his JPGs are worse than the OOC JPGs. But he likes them
. By being aware of the full power of the RAW processing tools, actually, I am not surprised at all, that an overly ambitious person can ruin some images. In Canada, we have strict gun restrictions, but any idiot can buy Lightroom (or even worse, a CC PS7).
Following the CC thing and trying to improve our lives, it might be a responsible idea for Adobe to request and inspect from each LR owner his ten most processed images before allowing him to buy the next LR upgrade.
I keep all my original RAW files, and on occasions (such as after reading the aforementioned books), I have re-processed some old files and made a better image. Nevertheless, I still think that there are situations where using the from-camera JPG can be quite adequate and most practical. For some people for sure.