OK, that's a pretty provocative statement--it's no myth, TIFF/RAW offers superior image quality blah blah blah... What is a myth is that you *must use* TIFF/RAW if you are a *serious* digital photographer.
When I first started using digital 5 years ago, I used JPEG because--well, there was no other option on my camera at the time! My style of photography was particularly well suited for JPEG, and in fact my style even became enhanced because of this so-called limitation. (Note: that's what art is all about, overcoming limitations and adversity; take away all the limitations, and you've taken away all incentive for creativity.)
When I "graduated" to a better digital camera that supported TIFF/RAW, did I switch? Briefly. A few images exposed in super-deluxe mode didn't look noticeably better, and took up half my hard drive (slight exaggeration) to boot (minor attempt at geek humor).
The real quality test is enlargements. All of my current work looks great at 8" by 10" and 11" by 14", and most of it does just fine at 16" by 20" as well.
Beyond this, a good photograph is not always a sharp photograph. There are plenty of razor-sharp images out there not worth printing, and conversely there are plenty of fuzzy/out of focus images out there which are classic. Probably the biggest concern people have out there is that the JPEG compression algorithm introduces "artifacts" and unwanted textures/patterns.
Yeah, in the old "film" days, we had a term for this: it was called "grain". There are people who spend their lives trying to get an image not just razor sharp, but so that grain in not visible. There are others who
think the grain adds a nice texture to an image, and embrace grain as a positive element of working with film. I'm firmly in this later group. Grain is good.
JPEG is, to me, the digital equivalent of film grain. I love it. It adds a certain gritty texture to many of my images, and this has become an important element of my personal style. Plus it lets me fit a hell of a lot more images on my memory cards!
[ photograph above: Rock Creek, 2004 ]
