Thanks for the excellent points you brought up about my unfinished article. I will indeed print this out, research the particular points you mention, and either modify or reinforce my article.
This is great! Where else in the world could I go to find expertise, and people willing to help with things like this, except here at Nikonians?
As a new writer, I am trying to learn the writing process, and write accurate articles in the process. I see the need for very careful research before a particular statement is made. I am attempting to do this, but at the same time, I find the varied opinions of people in our group are extremely valuable for the writing process. I simply can't get away with many opinion statements without getting called out on it by someone, such as yourself, with an equally strong opinion in the opposite direction.
I personally do not like JPEG, since I am wary about throwing away any data. I have found that my own JPEG images with my D100 are NOT as sharp, or as sharpenable as the RAW conversions to TIFF are. It seems that the JPEG mode of the D100 is throwing away enough data that I cannot sharpen the image as well in Photoshop 6.0. The guys at DPReview.com (see quotes below) agree with me on this in their very detailed D100 review. In fact, I have cut out a couple of direct quotes from this review (backed up by actual images) where they are discussing this very issue:
START QUOTES http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond100/page11.asp "There is a noticeable difference in sharpness between JPEG Fine and RAW, the PC based RAW conversion software has much more processing power available and does appear to apply slightly more sharpening to the image before output (default settings were used to convert the RAW image). Getting back to in-camera formats the JPEG Normal setting doesn't seem to introduce too much in the way of visible artifacts and would seem to be more than acceptable for everyday shooting, especially if you have a limited capacity storage card. Smaller output size images are of course very sharp and detailed, reducing 6 million pixels down to 3.3 (2240 x 1488) does produce a very sharp and smooth image."
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond100/page15.asp "It's fairly clear to see from the side-by-side crops from our standard resolution chart that shooting RAW and converting to JPEG later will deliver a sharper image with more visible detail. Despite having both the camera JPEG and RAW convert on the same sharpening settings the RAW converted file is obviously sharper." END QUOTES
They do admit that JPEG is "more than acceptable for everyday shooting," but I hope that I am doing more than making snapshots. I have been discussing this matter with an associate today, and he has asked that, instead of conjecture, that I should make some actual images that tests my type of shooting (Nature Photography, Landscapes, etc.), and how JPEG might apply. I will do so, and get back to this thread with the results.
Anyone else out there have any strong opinions about this subject? Thanks in advance!